:; y^'>-::':^y/  &m  mm     • 
fBBBKBBBSk .,.-. ■.■;.:-: 

Lt<itWii(QSvwiMffliie»iai»»iiwgT)K%'aray^ 

.^-.■;  raft  ••;:.>•.'.■.     •,  -.-,  ■'.'-. .-., 


DOCTRINE  OF  INSPIRATION 


THEODORE  ¥.  HOPKINS. 


BS480 


JK 


0i  U  »*%%/  &    . 


.s**#". 


INCET 

ON,    N.    J. 

Divisiot 

Section 

Number 

,~B.S.4:8.0 
.uti.73 

I 


THE 


DOCTRINE  OF  INSPIRATION 


AN 


OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY 


i;v 


/ 

THEODORE    IV.  HOPKINS. 


|  NOT    PUBLISHED. 


ROCHESTER,   N.  V. 

PRINTED    FOR    THE    AUTHOR. 

1891. 


COPYRIGHT. 

1881. 

By  Theodore  W.  Hopkins. 


CONTENTS 


P  w;i:. 
INTRODUCTION,  ...- 1 

III ATHEN     DOCTKINB    OP    INSPIRATION,  ' 2-8 

Vedic — Buddhistic  —  Zoroastrian — Chinese — Mohammedan — Clas- 
sic Pagan — Qeneral  Conclusions. 

Jbwtbh   Doctrine  of  Inspiration  to  the   Close   of   the   First 

Century,  a.  D 8-13 

Palestinian  Judaism — Alexandrian  Judaism — Testimony  of  Jew- 
ish Writers 

Christian  Doctrine  of  Inspiration— Ante-Nicene  Period,  A.  D. 

100-825 13-24 

Terms — Unity  of  Inspiration  in  Old  and  New  Testaments — Extra- 
Canonical  Inspiration — Nature  of  Inspiration— Degrees  of  Inspi- 
ration— Verbal  Inspiration — General  Conclusions. 

Post  Nkene   and    Subsequent    History  of   Inspiration   to  the 

Close  op  Ancient  Christianity,  A.  D.  835-760,        .        .  24-  29 
Causes  of   Diminished    Importance  Attached  to  this  Doctrine — 
Nature  nf  Inspiration — Degrees  of  Inspiration — Verbal  Inspira- 
tion— General  Conclusions. 

Doctrine  of  Inspiration  in  the  Middle  Ages,  A.  D.  750-1517,     .  29-  37 

Views  of  Individual  Writers  in  Chronological  Order — Scholastics 
— Mystics — Forerunners  of  Refoimation— Jewish  Doctrine — Gen 
eral  Conclusions. 

Doctrine  of  Inspiration    during  the  Reformation  Era,  A.  D. 

1517-1600 37-45 

Views  of  Leading  Reformers— Followers  of  Great  Reformers — 
Remarks  on  Apparent  Inconsistencies  in  Attitude  of  Reformers 
toward  Scriptures. 

Doctrine  of  Inspiration  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,      .        .  45-  60 

Lutheran— Reformed  —  Roman  Catholic  — Arminian — Socinian — 

Mystic — Opinion  in  England. 

Doctrine  op  Inspiration  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,        .       .  61-73 
Causes  of  Modification  of  Rigid  Theories — Rationalistic  'Writers — 
More  Evangelical —  Swedenborg — opinion  in  England. 

Doctrine  of  Inspiration  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,  .  73-106 

(b'rman  Rationalists  —  Schleiermacher —  Supernatural  if-m —  More 
General  Evangelical— French  Orthcdoxy— Opinion  in  England — 
Greek  and  Roman  Catholic  Churches. 

General  Conclusions  from  the  Whole  Subvby,  .  106-108 

Index  of  Authors  ad.  fin. 


THEf 

The  Doctrine  of  Inspiration 

.  hi    Outline    Historical   Study-. 


INTRODUCTION 


The  accompanying  sketch  does  nor  aim  to  present  a  complete 

critical  history  of  the  Doctrine  of  Inspiration.  It  simply  embod- 
ies the  results  of  some  special  studies,  which  may  he  of  interest  in 
view  of  current  biblical  and  theological  discussions. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  method  of  treatment  is  not  uniform. 
Somewhat  frequent  changes  of  plan  were  necessitated  by  the 
varying  nature  and  amount  of  the  material  at  command.  In  the 
latter  part  of  the  essay  it  has  heen  deemed  advisable  to  allow 
writers  to  speak,  partially  at  least,  for  themselves,  though  great 
condensation  bas  heen  necessary  in  order  to  bring  detailed  state- 
ments within  a  reasonable  compass. 

The  author  feels  it  <\uc  to  himself  to  state  that  while  he  has 
endeavored  to  keep  this  sketch,  as  far  as  possihle,  free  from 
subjective  coloring,  his  personal  convictions  and  sympathies  are 
wholly  in  the  direction  of  conservative  orthodox  opinions. 


The  science  of  Comparative  Religion  teaches  that  many  ideas 
commonly  associated  with  Christianity  alone,  and  supposed  to  be 
it-  exclusive  property,  really  belong  to  man  as  a  religious  being. 
No  matter  how  rude  the  conception  or  imperfect  their  expres- 
sion, they  enter  into  every  form  of  faith,  and  are  coextensive  with 

a  belief    in    Deify.      In    other   systems    they  voice  deep    need-    of 
1 1  in  nan  mollis  and  earne.-t  though  impotent  efforts  to  BUpply  them  : 

■i 


2  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION  '. 

in  Christianity  the  wants  arc  fully  met,  the  ideas  become  elori- 

oils  realities. 

Such  an  idea  is  that  of  Inspiration,  in  the  broad  sense  of  the 
word.  In  the  historical  survey  proposed,  we  must  be  content  to 
employ  the  term,  as  past  ages  have  done,  with  some  latitude  of 
meaning,  leaving  nice  distinctions  and  close  definitions  to  the 
province  of  doctrinal  polemics.  We  shall  not  undertake  a  study 
of  the  subject  in  its  more  general  relations  to  the  canon,  but  shall 
confine  our  investigations  in  the  main  to  two  specific  points :  the 
Xntu/'r,  and  the  Extent  of  Inspiration. 


A.     THE    HEATHEN   DOCTRINE 
OF    INSPIRATION. 

I.     The   Vedic. 

Nowhere  in  the  world  have  such  elaborate  and  minute  theories 
of  inspiration  been  developed  as  in  western  and  southern  Asia  — 
especially  in  India.  The  Brahmans  teach  that  even  before  time 
was,  the  Yedic  hymns  in  their  minutest  parts  lived  in  the  mind 
of  Deity,  and  were  immediately  communicated,  not  to  common 
men,  but  to  superior  beings  raised  up  and  prepared  to  receive 
them.  Of  course  but  one  element,  the  divine,  is  conceded  in 
their  composition  ;  no  room  is  left  for  trace  or  tinge  of  human 
coloring.  With  such  an  origin  and  character,  they  must  form  for 
the  Hindu  an  absolutely  infallible  revelation. 

Sanscrit  scholars  tell  us  that  these  high  claims  are  nowhere  put 
forth  in  the  hymns  themselves,1  though  the  authors  at  times 
vaguely  assert  the  presence  of  a  higher  consciousness  and  influ- 
ence under  which  they  wrote.  Thus  they  would  declare  their  felt 
dependence  on  an  unseen  Power,  self-surrender  to  a  higher  Will — 
this  and  nothing  more.  But  from  such  a  small  beginning  there 
gradually  grew  up  among  the  ancient  Brahmans  a  belief  in  the 
supernatural  origin  and  character  of  the  Vedas,  which  was  at  last 
formulated  into  the  extreme  and  artificial  theory  of  inspiration 
above  described.     The  same  attribute  is  now  ascribed  also  to  the 


1  Chips  from  a  German  Workshop,  I.  18. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    8T1  DY.  6 

Brahmanas  (commentaries  on  the  ancient  Vedic  sacrificia]  ritea 
ami  the  hymns  therewith  connected),  l>nr  to  no  other  Hindu 
writings. 

II.  The   Buddhistic. 

Buddhism  can  be  properly  understood  only  when  viewed  as  a 
reaction  against  Brahmanism.  Properly  Bpeaking,  it  is  not  a 
religion  at  all,  for  it  has  uoreal  Deity;  it  is  rather  a  metaphysical 
philosophy,  —  a  system,  not  revealed,  but  discovered  by  a  man, 
Gautama.  Even  after  the  sage  attained  the  final  truth,  becoming 
Buddha,  the  Enlightened,  he  left  in  his  gospel  of  annihilation  no 
room  for  nature,  much  less  for  the  supernatural. 

Buddhism  began  by  denying  the  authenticity  and  revealed 
character  of  the  Vedas,  but  yet  went  on  to  develop  an  immense 
sacred  canon  of  it>  own  (two  hundred  and  twenty-five  folio  vol- 
n  i no  i.  for  which,  however,  it  dare  make  no  claim  of  divine 
origin,  or  any  sort  of  inspiration  whatever.  For  our  purposes, 
therefore,  the  system  of  Sakya-Mouni,  though  in  form  a  book- 
religion,  may  be  left  out  of  the  account. 

III.  The   Zoroastrian. 

Tradition  among  the  Parsis  ascribes  the  immediate  and  exclu- 
sive  authorship  of  the  whole  Zend-Avesta  to  Ahura-Mazda,  who 
delivered  it  complete  to  Zoroaster,  that  he  might  publish  its 
Contents  among  men. 

The  sacred  hooks  themselves,  however,  as  now  extant,  make  no 
such  lofty  assertions  on  their  own  behalf.  The  Ya.sna,  not  the 
Vendidad,  according  to  Eaug,  does  claim  to  be  a  divine  revela- 
tion, hut  not  in  such  a  sense  as  to  imply  pure  passivity  on  the 
part  of  tin'  human  organ.  Zoroaster  i>  admitted  to  Immediate 
intercourse  with  the  Deity,  plies  him  with  questions  on  every 
Bubject  of  great  interest  and  moment,  and  receives  full  and  trust- 
worthy replies,  which  he  makes  known  to  his  immediate  follow- 
er- and  to  mankind  in  general. 

It  is  highly  probable  that  Zoroaster  committed  none  of  his 
doctrines  to  writing.      kike    the    Vedic    hvmns,  thev    were   trans- 

■ 

mittcd    through    many    centuries    by   oral    tradition   alone.       The 

first  penmen  in  each  case  are  of  Decessity  unknown. 


4  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    INSPIRATION! 

It  thus  appears  that  the  development  of  the  doctrine  of  inspi- 
ration was  substantially  the  same  in  the  case  of  the  Persian  canon 
as  in  that  of  the  Hindu. 

IV.  The   Chinese. 

It  has  been  said  of  the  three  great  religions  of  China,  Con- 
fucianism, Buddhism  and  Taoism,  that  in  their  true  conception 
they  are  not  religions  at  all,  as  having  no  personal  God ;  but 
that  they  are  rather  systems  of  philosophy,  one  moral,  another 
metaphysical,  and  a  third  materialistic.  If  this  be  so,  none 
of  the  sacred  books  can  logically  claim  divine  origin,  or  the 
attribute  of  inspiration  in  any  form.  The  facts  as  established  by 
modern  scholarship  seem  to  show : 

1.  That  the  idea  of  revelation,  as  a  possibility,  is  common  to 
both  Confucianism  and  Taoism. 

Dr.  Legge  says :  "  Among  the  primitive  characters  of  the  Chi- 
nese was  one,  symbol  of  manifestation  or  revelation  from  above. 
That  God  should  make  known  his  will  from  above,  did  not  seem 
strange  to  the  ( 'hinese  fathers.  In  '  Shih'  we  read  :  '  God  spake 
to  king  Wan/  as  in  the  Old  Testament  God  spake  to  Moses. 
Hundreds  of  Taoist  tracts  are  circulated  in  China  purporting  t<>  be 
the  teaching  of  this  god  or  that,  warning  or  advising  mankind."1 

±  As  matter  of  fact,  however,  according  to  the  same  author, 
the  various  sacred  books  of  China  do  not  profess  to  have  been 
inspired  or  to  constitute  what  we  should  call  a  revelation.  Histo- 
rians, poets,  or  others  wrote  them  as  they  were  moved  in  their 
own  minds.  An  old  poem  may  occasionally  contain  what  it  says 
was  spoken  by  God,  but  we  can  only  understand  that  language  as 
calling  attention  emphatically  to  the  statement  to  which  it  is 
prefixed.2 

V.  The    Mohammedan. 

Though  chronologically  out  of  place,  it  is  most  convenient  to 
notice  here  the  view   of  inspiration  implied  in  the  Koran. 

Mohammed  professed  to  lie  the  recipient  of  manifold  visions 
and  revelations,  which  came  to  him,  not  in  waking,  Belf-conscious 


1  Religions  >>/  China,  p.  245. 

8  Sacrecl  I 3ot >/.:■<  »f  (he  East,  Vol.  III.,  Introduction,  xv. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDT.  0 

moments,  hut  in  tits  of  ecstasy.  The  appearance  of  his  person 
at  such  times  was  repulsive,  terrible.  "  He  roared  like  a  camel ; 
his  eyes  rolled  and  glowed  like  red  coals,  and  <>n  the  coldest  day 
terrible  perspiration  would  break  out  all  over  his  body.  When 
the  terror  ceased,  it  seemed  to  him  as  if  he  had  heard  bells  ring- 
ing, "the  sound  whereof  seemed  to  rend  him  t«»  pieces,'— as  if  he 

had  heard  the  voice  of  a  man, — as  if  lie  had  seen  (iabriel,-  -OT  as 
if  word-  had  />,  <  n  written  in  /lis  hea/rVn  When  the  paroxysm 
was  over  and  consciousness  returned,  then,  and  not  before,  did 
Mohammed  begin  to  dictate  to  scribes  that  which  he  had  heard 

in  the  state  of  ecstasy. 

The  prophet  was  a  victim  of  epilepsy,  but  no  diagnosis  of  this 
disease  could  explain  all  these  symptoms  with  their  attendant 
results.  They  seemed  intelligible  only  as  signs  of  the  veritable 
prophetic  frenzy.  Thus  classic  paganism  would  have  interpreter! 
them,  and  it  was  quite  natural  that  the  religious  credulity  of  the 
seventh  century  should  do  the  same. 

Turn  now  to  the  Koran.  It  purports  to  be  a  direct  revelation 
from  (iod  in  the  highest  sense.  The  inner  consciousness  of  the 
prophet  is  not  elevated  and  illumined  with  celestial  light;  rather 
is  the  human  element  driven  from  every  nook  and  hiding  place, 
while  the  divine  element  is  sole  and  supreme.  Every  word 
individually,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  is  the  direct  utter- 
ance of  Allah.  "The  formula,  'Speak,  thus  saith  the  Lord,' 
either  precedes  every  single  sentence,  or  must  be  so  understood." 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  this  extreme  and  artificial  theory  of 
inspiration  is  not,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Vedas  and  the  Zend- 
Avesta,  a  gradual  growth  of  ages,  but  rather  an  original  claim  made 
by  Mohammed  himself.  When  demand  is  now  made  for  some 
miraculous  -ign  of  his  prophetic  mission  and  authority,  Mussul- 
man.- appeal  to  the  Koran  itself  as  the  most  stupendous  of  all 
miracles.  It  is  eternal  and  uncreated,  being  first  written  in  the 
highest  heavens,  but  carried  by  Gabriel  to  the  lowest  heaven, 
and  thence  at  intervals  made  known  to  the  prophet.  As  the 
immediate  handiwork  of  (iod,  ir  is  faultless  in  style  and  inimi- 
table in  its  beauty,  but  is  for  this  very  reason  untranslatable  into 
foreign  tongues.  The  doctrine  of  inspiration  could  no  farther 
go.     It  would  be  interesting,  but  is  perhaps  impossible  to  know. 


1  Literary  Remain*  <>f  Fmmanuel  Deuttch,  si. 


6  THE   DOCTRINE   OF    inspiration: 

whether  and  how  far  its  development  in  Mohammedanism  was 
influenced  by  crude  and  exaggerated  views  prevalent  in  the  cor- 
rupt Christianity  and  Judaism  of  the  time  and  region. 

VI.     Classic   Paganism. 

It  lias  been  said,  somewhat  rashly  perhaps,  that  "  we  search 
the  literature  of  Greece  and  Rome  in  vain  for  the  idea  of  revela- 
tion." If  the  affirmation  be  restricted  to  book-revelation,  it  may, 
perhaps,  be  approximately  true,  though  the  Sibylline  books  with 
their  sacred  character  and  supposed  divine  origin  should  count 
for  something.  But  the  idea  of  revelation  in  itself  was  common 
to  the  whole  ancient  world,  and  was  nowhere  more  generally 
credited  than  in  Greece  and  Rome.  What  else  mean  the  Dodo- 
nian,  Delphic  and  numerous  other  oracles,  the  Pythian  priestess, 
the  various  sibyls,  and  the  whole  class  of  seers,  soothsayers  and 
diviners  ? 

Apollo  was  the  special  god  of  prophecy,  and  he  as  well  as 
other  deities  made  known  the  future  and  all  other  needful  mat- 
ters of  command  and  counsel  through  inspired  human  organs. 
Inspiration  had  its  certain  signs ;  its  outward  phenomena  and 
internal  characteristics  were  carefully  analyzed  and  noted.  Even 
the  means  of  inducing  it  were  discovered,  so  that  to  classic 
paganism  it  became  an  art. 

There  is  no  need  of  repeating  the  story  of  the  distressing  signs 
under  which  the  Pythian  priestess  uttered  her  responses.  The 
lofty  tripod  on  which  she  sat,  the  smoke  issuing  from  the  well 
below,  throwing  her  into  delirium  and  convulsions,  her  wild  and 
incoherent  ejaculations,  noted  by  attendants  as  the  divine  answer 
to  anxious  questionings, —  all  these  are  familiar  to  the  intelligent 
schoolboy. 

Pagan  orthodoxy  believed  devoutly  that  Apollo  himself  dwelt 
in  the  priestess,  prompting  every  word  she  spoke,  annihilating 
for  the' time  her  human  consciousness  and  personality,  and  mak- 
ing her  his  blind  instrument.  Even  Plato  could  not  rise  above 
this  vulgar  idea,  but  maintained,  with  the  Stoics  and  almost  the 
whole  of  antiquity,  that  the  sense  for  higher  revelation  arises  in 
a  condition  of  unconsciousness,  in  sleep,  and  most  of  all  in  ecstasy. 

"  Xo  man,  when  in  his  senses,  attains  prophetic  truth  and 
inspiration;  but  when  he  receives  the  inspired  word,  either  his 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDT.  7 

intelligence  is  enthralled  by  sleep,  or  he  is  demented  by  some 
distemper  or  possession.     And  he  who  would  understand  what  he 

remembers  to  have  bee  I  said,  whether  he  was  in  dream,  or  when 
he  was  awake,  by  the   prophetic  and   enthusiastic  nature,  or  what 

he  has  seen,  must  recover  his  senses."1 

There  were  others,  however,  who  took  a  different  and  a  higher 
view.  Plutarch,  for  example,  excused  the  had  poetry  with  which 
sceptical  ridicule  charged  the  Pythian  priestess,  and  vet  main- 
tained its  inspiration  by  asserting  that  the  deity  made  use  of  her 
imperfect  natural  faculties  for  conveying  and  embodying  his 
own  infallible  truth.  Here  he  clearly  distinguishes  two  elements 
and  factor.-  in  inspiration,  a  divine  and  a  human,  and  seeks  by 
attributing  to  each  its  proper  share  in  the  complex  product,  to 
avoid  either  extreme,  credulity  or  unbelief. 

He  says:  "We  are  not  to  believe  that  the  god  made  the  verses; 
but,  after  he  has  communicated  the  moving  impulse,  each  of  the 
prophetesses  is  moved  in  a  way  that  corresponds  to  her  own 
peculiar  nature.  For  let  us  suppose  that  the  oracles  were  not  to 
he  spoken,  hut  recorded  in  writing,  we  should  not.  T  imagine, 
ascribe  to  the  god  the  strokes  of  the  letters,  and  find  fault  with 
him  because  the  writing  was  not  so  beautiful  as  that  of  the  impe- 
rial edicts.  Not  the  language,  nor  the  tone,  nor  the  expression, 
nor  the  measure  of  the  verse  comes  from  the  god  —  all  this  comes 
from  the  woman.  He  simply  communicates  the  intuitions,  and 
kindles  up  a  light  in  the  soul  with  regard  to  the  future."2  More 
to  the  same  purport  might  be  quoted. 

General   Conclusions. 

Enough  lias  probably  now  been  said  respecting  extra-Christian 

views  of  inspiration.  We  see  that  the  idea  exists  in  various  forms 
and  degrees,  and  .-hall  find  that  it  exerted,  in  its  Platonic  form, 
much  influence  upon  Alexandrian  .Judaism,  and  thus  mediately 
at  lea-t  upon  (  'hristianify. 

Two  things  at  this  Stage  of  our  inquiries  demand  notice. 

1.    It  is  not  true,  without  exception,  as  commonly  supposed, 

that  heathen  inspiration  acknowledges  but  one  factor,  the  divine. 


1  Plat...   TmOUS,  71.  70.     Jowett'fl  Trims.,  vol.  II..  568 
-  j>,  Pyfhia  OractMt,  cxxl 


8  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION: 

and  that  it  wholly  suppresses  —  absolutely  obliterates,  for  the  time 
—  the  human  consciousness  of  its  organ.  There  are  at  least  inti- 
mations of  the  conscious  coexistence  and  cooperation  of  the  divine 
and  human. 

2.  Extravagant,  artificial,  and  rigidly  mechanical  theories  of 
inspiration  are  not  always  the  immediate  and  inevitable  accompa- 
niment of  a  sacred  canon.  As  in  the  case  of  the  Vedie  hymns 
and  the  Zend-Avesta,  they  are  apt  to  be  the  result  of  a  long  and 
gradual  growth  of  tradition  and  superstition. 


B.  THE  JEWISH  DOCTRINE  OF  INSPIRATION, 
TO   THE   CLOSE   OF    THE    FIRST   CENTURY. 

It  may  be  said  in  general  that  the  Jews  always  and  all  of  them 
cherished  a  deep  reverence  for  their  sacred  books,  conceding  their 
divine  origin  and  their  unique  and  binding  authority.  The 
specific  doctrine  or  theory  of  inspiration,  however,  was  a  gradual 
growth,  and  was  formulated  mainly  at  Alexandria  during  the 
period  between  the  cessation  of  prophecy  and  the  close  of  the 
Old  Testament  canon.    Opinions  on  this  subject  varied  somewhat. 

I.     Palestinian  Judaism. 

It  is  here  that  we  would  naturally  expect  to  find  prevalent  the 
strictest  views  on  this  subject.  Two  degrees  of  inspiration  (not 
tl uve  as  in  the  case  of  Maimonides  and  other  Jewish  doctors  of 
the  Middle  Ages)  were  admitted. 

1.   Legal  or  Mosaic. 

This  was  peculiar  to  Moses  alone,  being  shared  by  no  other  one 
of  the  sacred  writers.  The  Law  came  direct  from  God.  being 
either  written  by  his  own  hand,  or  else  dictated  to  Moses  as  his 
amanuensis.1  As  to  inherent  character,  it  is  in  itself  an  original 
and  perfectly  sufficient  revelation,  and  if  Israel  had  acted  in  a 
worthy  manner,  no  further  divine  communication  tlirousrh  the 
other  sacred  books  would  have  been  needful. 

Nothing  is  contained  in  the  Eagiographa  which  is  not  implied 


Cremer  in  Berzog,  Recti  Encyclopadie,  art.  Tnspi/ration. 


A\    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDT.  v 

iii  the  Law,  nor  dare  any  prophet  give  utterance  to  anything 
which  is  not  founded  on  the  same.  All  indeed  which  the 
prophets  afterwards  predicted  was  already  beforehand  revealed 
from  Sinai. 

The  Law  is  called  Holy  Scripture  absolutely,  the  other  writings 
attain  a  like  dignity  only  from  their  constituent  relation  to  this.1 

2.   Prophetic. 

All  the  other  hooks  of  the  Old  Testament,  though  divinely 
revealed,  must  take  a  second  rank.2  This  results  from  the  fact 
that  they  reveal  nothing  new  in  substance,  but  simply  teach  the 
correct  understanding  and  explanation  of  the  Law.  The  differ- 
ence of  the  two  classes  of  writings  was  illustrated  by  the  saying 
that  '  Moses  looked  upon  a  clear  mirror,  other  prophets  upon  one 
whose  surf ace  was  dim';  or,  that  'he  looked  through  one,  other 
prophets  through  several  mirrors.'3  Notwithstanding  this  lower 
degree  of  inspiration  and  consequent  inferiority  of  rank,  Palestin- 
ian Jewish  theology  insisted  upon  the  inclusion  of  the  Prophets 
and  Hagiographa  with  the  Law  in  'Holy  Scripture.'  Those 
who  denied  the  claim  were  branded  as  apostates  from  Israel. 

It  was  not  held  that  the  process  of  inspiration  in  these  writers 
annihilated  their  human  personality  and  made  them  unconscious 
<  organs  of  the  Spirit.3  It  did  not  even  obliterate  diversities  of  gifts, 
or  peculiarities  of  literary  style  by  which  the  productions  of  one 
might  he  distinguished  from  those  of  another.  Apparently,  more 
pronounced  individuality  was  conceded  to  the  writers  of  the  his- 
torical hooks  than  to  the  prophets  strictly  so  called. 

II.     Alexandrian   Judaism. 

Very  different  was  the  case  with  Alexandrian  Judaism.  Seem- 
ingly more  liberal  in  general  character,  its  theory  of  inspiration 
was  far  more  strict.  This  is  seen  in  the  credit  given  to  the  fable 
of  the  miraculous  origin  of  the  Septuagint  translation.  Aristeas, 
followed  by  Philo  and  Josephus,  relates  that  Ptolemy  Philadel- 
phia summoned  Beventy-two  rabbin.-,  from  Palestine  to  make  a 

translation   of  the  sacred   books   from    the  Hebrew    original    into 


1  Weber,  Alt-tfynagogal.  FaJautin.  Ilwol,  78-80. 
•'  Weber,  AtLBynagogal.  Paicut.  TKeoL,  78. 
( Iremer,  747. 

3 


10  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION  I 

Greek.  These  men  performed  the  task,  translating  each  one  by 
himself,  in  a  separate  cell,  in  such  a  way  that  their  productions 
agreed  exactly,  word  for  word,  from  beginning  to  end.  Such 
unity  could  be  attributed,  as  Irenaeus  says,1  only  to  immediate 
divine  inspiration. 

This  legend  was  generally  credited,  and  greatly  influenced  the 
development  of  the  doctrine  of  inspiration ;  in  fact,  it  shows 
how  lofty  was  the  idea  then  already  prevailing.  Of  course, 
arguing  from  the  less  to  the  greater,  any  reverence  given  to  the 
translation  would  be  intensified  in  the  case  of  the  Hebrew 
original. 

The  Hellenistic  view  of  inspiration,  if  generally  less  elaborate 
and  exact  in  form  and  statement  than  the  Palestinian  Jewish, 
was  grosser,  more  extravagant,  and  mechanical  in  character.  It 
assigned  the  rank  of  prophet  to  all  Old  Testament  writers.  All 
spoke  and  wrote  in  a  state  of  ecstasy,  which  was  normal  to  one 
under  the  influence  of  inspiration.  Self-consciousness  and  free- 
will were  suspended,  and  the  seer  became  the  merely  passive 
organ  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

III.     Testimony   of  Jewish   Writers. 

( )f  express  testimonies  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Jewish  canonical 
books,  we  can  notice  but  three. 

1.  The  Apochryphal  Writers. 

These  bear  clear  and  abundant  witness  to  their  belief  in  the 
divine  origin  and  character  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 
Moses  is  spoken  of  as  '  commanded  by  God  to  write  his  Law  ; ' 
the  Law  itself  is  '  the  book  of  the  covenant  of  the  Most  High 
God.'2  Comfort  is  said  to  be  derived  from  the  '  holy  books 
of  Scripture,  which  we  have  in  our  hands.''  The  communica- 
tions made  to  Moses  and  other  sacred  writers  bear  the  character 
of  divine  revelations,  and  are  the  words  of  God  himself.3 

2.  JosepTias. 

Josephus,  born  at  Jerusalem,  and  a  member  of  the  sect  of  the 


1  Adv.  Bmr.t  Lib.  III.:  24. 

'-'  Quoted  Lee  on  Inspiration,  62. 

3  Bannerman  on  Inspiration,  117. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDT.  11 

Pharisees,  ought  to  serve  as  a  representative  example  of  Pales- 
tinian Jewish  orthodoxy.     Indeed,  he  is  quoted  by  most  orthodox 

writers  as  a  valuable  witness  to  the  general  acceptance  of  the 
doctrine  of  plenary  and  verbal  inspiration  among  hie  countrymen. 
He  says:  "Every  one  is  not  permitted,  of  his  own  accord,  to 
he  a  writer,  nor  is  there  any  disagreement  in  what  is  written  ; 
they  being  only  prophets  that  have  written  the  original  and 
earliest  accounts  of  things,  as  they  learned  them  of  Grod 
himself,  by  inspiration  ;  and  others  have  written  what  hath  hap- 
pened in  their  own  time,  and  that  in  a  very  distinct  manner  also. 
For  we  have  not  an  innumerable  multitude  of  hooks  among 
us,  disagreeing  from  and  contradicting  one  another,  [as  the 
Greeks  have],  hut  only  twenty-two  hooks,  which  contain  the 
records  of  all  past  times,  which  are  justly  believed  to  be  divine."'1 
If  this  correctly  represents  the  Jewish  orthodoxy  of  the  first  cen- 
tury A.  I).,  it  does  not  necessarily  indicate  the  personal  opinions 
of  the  author.  It  seems  doubtful  whether  Josephus  had  any 
real  belief  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 
If  he  had,  how  could  he  treat  them  as  he  does,  while  claiming 
to  make  them  the  basis  of  his  own  history  '.  How  could  he 
jumble  together  fact  and  fancy,  divine  wisdom  and  foolish  phi- 
losophy, veritable  history  and  baseless  tradition  \  Why  should 
he  be  so  anxious  to  eliminate,  by  any  and  every  possible  method, 
the  miraculous  and  Messianic  elements  from  the  narrative  with 
which  he  has  to  deal  \  It  will  probably  be  hard  to  find  such  an 
answer  to  these  questions  as  will  save  the  consistency  and 
character  of  the  author.  Still,  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  such 
ae  it  i>.  is  one  which,  in  the  meagreness  of  our  information,  we 
could  ill  afford  to  lose. 

3.  Phiio. 

This  learned  Alexandrian  is  generally,  and  on  the  whole  cor- 
rectly, taken  as  the  representative  of  the  Eellenistic  Jewish  view 
of  inspiration.  What  has  been  said  above  of  the  general  view 
ill.)  will   for  the  mosl    part  apply  to  him.      When   his  opinions 

are  subjected  to  a  close  examination,  they  are  found  to   be  vague, 

especially  on   the   psychological  phenomena    in   question—  how 

much  or  how   little   activity   he  would  assign  to  tin'  personal 


Contra  Apian,  Lib.  I.:  cap.  7,  8. 


12  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    INSPIRATION  '. 

mental  powers  of  inspired  men.  He  may  have  entertained 
mutually  conflicting  ideas  on  the  whole  subject. 

"When  under  the  influence  of  inspiration,  a  person  was  in  a 
state  of  ecstasy  ;  and  this  to  Philo  was  the  '  goal  of  ambition,' 
and,  as  he  testifies,  in  some  sense  a  matter  of  personal  experience 
with  him.  lie  claims  inspiration  not  only  for  himself,  but  for 
every  pious  man;  and  yet  he  by  no  means  attempts  to  place  his 
own  productions,  or  those  of  his  fellows,  on  a  level  with  Holy 
Scripture.  His  idea  of  ecstasy  implies  such  a  perfect  self- 
surrender  to  the  fellowship  and  influence  of  Deity,  as  to  result 
in  a  complete  suppression  of  the  human  consciousness  and  will 
before  those  which  are  divine.  "The  prophet,"  he  says,  "is  the 
interpreter  of  the  Deity,  and  God  uses  him  as  an  instrument  to 
make  known  what  he  will.  A  prophet  says  nothing  of  his  own, 
but  merely  what  another  inspires  within  him." 

Somewhat  inconsistently  with  his  magical  view  of  inspiration, 
Philo  admits  a  difference  of  degree  in  the  same.  In  the  highest 
(ipfir]veia)  the  utterances  are  immediately  from  God  ;  the  human 
element  wholly  recedes,  the  divine  only  comes  to  view,  and  that 
pure  and  unmixed.  There  is  a  union,  or  rather  absorption  of  the 
person  inspired  in  the  God  who  moves  and  speaks  within  him. 
In  the  second  or  intermediate  stage,  there  is  a  mingling  of  the 
purely  divine  with  the  human,  both  of  which  appear  ;  the  prophet 
questions  and  God  replies  (as  in  the  Zend-Avesta) ;  thus  he  is 
able  to  predict  the  future  with  infallible  certainty.  In  the 
lowest  stage,  the  inspiration  proceeds  from  the  divine,  which  has 
become  the  personal  possession  of  the  prophet.  The  latter  speaks 
in  his  own  name  from  his  own  consciousness,  though  the  substance 
of  the  message  is  from  God. 

Careful  scrutiny  shows  that  at  the  bottom  of  Philo's  idea  of 
prophetic  ecstasy  there  is  no  higher  element  than  is  drawn  from 
heathen  divination  and  mystery-worship.  His  syncretistic  system 
allowed  him  to  transfer  the  heathen  conceptions  of  fiavriicr),  or 
'divine  possessions,'  to  the  prophets  of  the  Old .  Testament. 
But  more  than  this,  the  whole  Philonic  (and  thus  far,  Hellenistic) 
theory  is  of  heathen  origin. 

Conceding,  as  all  critics  do,  the  immense  influence  which 
Philo  exerted  ultimately  upon  this,  as  well  as  upon  the  whole 
circle  of  ( Jhristian  doctrine,  it  is  not  enough  to  admit,  with  Hagen- 
bach,  that  the   external  form  of    the  theory  of  inspiration  was 


AN    OUTLINE    EI8TOBIOAL    STl'DY.  13 

mixed  wp  with  heatlieD  notions;  the  pagan  conception  entered 
into  and  largely  determined  that  of  early  Christianity.  Valuable, 
then,  as  is  Philo'a  witness,  from  the  historical  and  apologetic 
points  of  view,  his  influence  upon  the  actual  development  of  the 
doctrine  was  to  a  great  extent  unwholesome  and  disastrous. 


C.     THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  INSPIRA- 
TION.—ANTE-NICENE  PERIOD. 

I.  Terms. 

The  word  deoirvevcrTia  (borrowed  from  2  Tim.  3:10,)  was 
first  made  current  in  ecclesiastical  language  by  Origen  and 
Ohrysostom.  It  became  the  most  common  term  to  express  our 
modern  English  idea  of  inspiration.  In  the  old  Greek  church, 
the  meaning  of  the  expression  was  indefinite.  Most  theologians, 
however,  understood  it?,  doubtless,  in  an  active,  rather  than  a 
passive  sense — 'full  of  the  divine  Spirit,'  '  God-breathing"  (Gott- 
athmend).  The  passive  signification,  'breathed  into,'  'in-spired 
by  God/  appears  to  have  been  made  prominent  by  Ohrysostom  ; 
later  it  become  controlling  in  the  church. 

The  Latin  word  hisjj'i 'r<tti<»b,  first  applied  by  Tertullian  to  the 
sacred  books,  and  thus  introduced  into  the  dogmatic  Christian 
vocabulary,  occurs  in  many  passages  of  the  Vulgate,  where  a 
divine  'breathing,'  'breathing  upon,'  is  mentioned,  but  it  an- 
Bwers  not  so  much  to  the  word  deoirvevcrTLa,  as  to  the  iTriirvoia 
of  the  old  Greeks, — a  word  which  in  the  Christian  church  also 
came  to  possess  precisely  the  same  signification  as  Oeoirvevcrria} 

II.  Unity  of  Inspiration  in  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments. 

With  the  Jewish  canon,  passed  over  also  to  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians, naturally  and  inevitably,  Jewish  ideas  and  views  of  its  in- 
spiration. From  the  very  first,  the  apostolic  writings  were 
regarded  with  great  reverence,and  were  considered  as  authoritative 
for  those  to  whom  they  were  immediately  addressed.  No  complete 


MQnscher,  fxhrb.  Dogm.-g68Ch.  (Neudecker),  11:2,  220. 


14  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION  I 

collection  of  Christian  sacred  writings,  however,  had  yet  been 
made;  and  consequently  the  precise  relation  of  those  already 
known  and  used,  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  was  not  defi- 
nitely settled  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Church.  Certainly 
tin'  formulated  theory  of  Jewish  inspiration  was  not  at  the  out- 
set applied  to  them.  This  application,  however,  was  speedily 
made,  and  several  things  conspired  to  effect  it.  One  was  the 
habit  of  reading  sections  from  the  writings  of  the  prophets  and 
apostles  in  the  public  assemblies  of  the  Christians.1  Equal  dignity 
seemed  thus  to  be  ascribed  to  both.  Then,  again,  careful  scrutiny 
disclosed  the  indissoluble  internal  connection  and  unity  of  both : 
the  one,  as  containing  the  predictions  of  the  Messiah  and  his 
mission  of  salvation ;  the  other,  as  proclaiming  his  actual  advent, 
and  the  completion  of  his  redeeming  work. 

Witness  as  to  the  belief  of  the  church  in  the  common  divine 
origin  and  character  of  both  classes  of  sacred  books  is  abundant, 
clear  and  decisive. 

Thus  Justin  (f  163)  says :  "  We  have  believed  God's  voice, 
spoken  again  by  the  apostles  of  Christ,  and  proclaimed  by  the 
prophets."2 

Theophilus :  "  Concerning  the  righteousness  which  the  Law 
enjoined,  confirmatory  utterances  are  found,  both  within  the 
Prophets  and  in  the  Gospels,  because  they  all  spoke  inspired  by 
one  Spirit  of  God."3 

Yet  more  distinctly,  Irenseus  (f  202) :  "  For  the  one  and  same 
Spirit  of  God,  who  proclaimed  by  the  prophets  what  and  of  what 
sort  the  advent  of  the  Lord  should  be,  announced  also  that  the 
fulness  of  the  times  had  come."4 

( )f  Tertullian  (f  cir.  230),  an  old  German  writer  says  :  "  His 
whole  theory  is  summed  up  in  these  two  propositions  :  k  The  Old 
and  New  Testaments  are  inspired ;  and,  both  collections  of  writ- 
ings are  inspired  by  one  and  the  same  God.1  This  he  proves  in 
detail,  in  his  treatise  '  Against  Marcion,'  especially  Chapters 
xix.,  xxv. 


1  Justin  Martyr,  First  Apol.,  c.  lxvii. 
•  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  c.  cxix. 
'AdAutoL,  III :  12. 
4  Adc.  Ear.,  iii  :  21,4. 


AN    OUTLINE    BI8TOBICAL    BTUDT.  15 

Origen's  testimony  ia  peculiarly  clear  and  explicit.  In  the 
preface  to  his  treatise  De  Prinoipiis,  (c.  4-),  he  says:  "That 
this  Spirit  inspired  each  one  of  the  saints,  whether  prophets  or 
apostles,  and  that  there  was  not  one  Spirit  in  the  men  of  the  old 
dispensation,  and  another  in  those  who  were  inspired  at  the  advent 
of  Christ,  is  most  clearly  taught  throughout  the  churches." 

(  Yril  of  Jerusalem,  living  at  the  end  of  our  period,  maintained 
that  the  same  Spirit  spoke  through  prophets  and  apostles:  "Let 
no  man  divide  the  Old  from  the  New  Testament,  or  say  that  the 
Spirit  in  one  is  different  from  the  Spirit  in  the  other,  else  he 
offends  against  the  Holy  Ghost  himself."1 

Much  more  testimony  to  the  same  effect,  both  direct  and  indi- 
rect, might  be  drawn  from  the  ante-Nicene  writers,  but  it  seems 
unnecessary. 

Thus  not  only  did  the  ante-Nicene  church  acknowledge  the  unity 
and  equality  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  but 
various  circumstances  conspired  to  increase  the  emphasis  placed 
upon  it.  Chief  among  these  was  the  opposition  of  the  Gnostics, 
who  either  wholly  rejected  the  Old  Testament,  maintaining  that 
it  was  inspired  by  the  Demiurge;  or,  as  Iremeus  says  of  the 
Valentinians,  ascribed  great  difference  in  character,  not  only  to 
the  prophetic  books,  but  even  to  the  discourses  of  Christ,  accord- 
ing as  they  were  inspired  by  higher  or  lower,  more  or  less  perfect 
spiritual  principles. 

III.     Extra-Canonical    Inspiration. 

Destructive  critics  have  made  much  of  the  fact  that  the  idea 
of  inspiration  was  not  strictly  limited  by  the  early  church-fathers 
to  the  canonical  writings,  but  was  extended  by  some  to  the 
apochryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  to  post-apostolic 

Christian  writings.      We  see,  for  example,  that — 

Justin  Martyr  and  Theophilus  attributed  inspiration  to  the 
Sibylline   books,  and    those  of  the    Persian    Ilystaspes.      Clement 

of  Alexandria  crcir.  220)  appears  to  hold  that  every  extraordinary 

talent  and   all    knowledge  of  the   true  and    good    is   the  result   of 
divine  influence— -is  inspired.      lie  also  says  that   among  heathen 


1  Caterh.sis,  XVI  :  4. 


L6  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   INSPIRATION: 

as  well  as  Jews,  God  endowed  distinguished  men  with  prophetic 
gifts.     He  here  refers  to  philosophers. 

Tertullian  gives  the  impression  that  he  also  regarded  every 
writing  useful  for  edification  as  inspired.1 

Origen  (f  254),  thought  that  perhaps  a  place  in  the  canon 
should  be  assigned  to  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias. 

Cyprian  (f  258)  declared  that  he  was  favored  with  visions,  and 
speaks  of  writing  certain  epistles  under  the  inspiration  of  God.2 

These  facts  do  indeed  show  that  the  ideas  of  these  church-fathers 
upon  the  subject  of  inspiration  were  in  some  respects  indefinite, 
but  the  reason  is  not  far  to  seek.  Some  of  them  were  acquainted 
with  the  Old  Testament  only  as  existing  in  the  version  of  the 
Seventy,  and  therefore  were  inclined  to  view  it  with  that  rever- 
ence which  later  orthodoxy  accorded  only  to  the  Hebrew  original. 
It  is  to  be  remembered  also  that  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament 
was  not  yet  finally  determined  in  the  consciousness  of  the  church. 
More  accurate  investigations  in  this  department  had  yet  to  be 
made.  A  more  exact  definition  of  inspiration  itself  had  yet  to  be 
supplied,  and  a  more  scientific  theory  of  the  same  to  be  developed. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  church  never 
committed  itself  to  the  sanction  of  any  of  the  doctrinal  vagaries 
of  individual  fathers  with  reference  to  the  sacred  Scriptures  and 
their  divine  inspiration.  Certain  it  is  that  '  always,  everywhere 
and  by  all '  a  higher  degree  of  inspiration  was  attributed  to  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  than  to  any  other  writings,  one  that 
implied  a  clear  and  absolute  infallibility  of  essential  contents,  and 
a  unique  divine  character. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  perhaps  dwells  more  at  length 
than  any  other  ante-Nicene  writer  upon  this  aspect  of  the  subject, 
while  he  concedes  a  kind  of  inspiration  to  the  philosophers,  and 
thinks  the  Holy  Ghost  had  imparted  some  truths  to  them,  in 
other  passages  expressly  concedes  that  they  have  fallen  into  error ; 
but  he  says  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments:  "I  could  cite  many 
other  passages  of  which  no  point  remains  unfulfilled,  for  the 
mouth  of  the  Lord,  the  Holy  Ghost,  has  spoken  it."3 


1  De  Cultu  Fern.,  c.  3. 

2  Epist.  lxiii.,  lxxvii. 

8  Cohort  cul  Gentes,  c.  9. 


AN    OUTLINE   BISTORICAL    BTUDT.  IT 

Tertullian  declared  that  the  apostles  were  made  possessors  of 
the  t'nl n  <  xx  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  while  all  others  shared  his  gifts 
only  in  measure*  This  would  probably  express  the  general  judg- 
ment of  the  ancient  church  concerning  his  divine  relation  to  the 
different  classes  of  writings.8 


IV.     The    Nature   of  Inspiration. 

No  formal  definition  of  inspiration,  nor  any  connected  sys- 
tematic doctrine  of  the  same  was  established  during  the  period 
with  which  we  are  now  concerned. 

At  the  very  first,  the  church  seems  to  have  contented  herself 
with  the  conviction  of  the  apostolic  authority  of  the  authors, 
and  the  conceded  truth  of  the  contents  of  the  sacred  hook.-. 
Soon,  however,  questionings  hei^an  to  arise  respecting  the  nat/Wi 
of  the  divine  influence  under  which  the  various  writers  did  their 
work.     Two  diverging  views  were  developed   among  the  ante- 

Nicene  fathers. 

1.  The  first  and  stricter  one  was.  as  is  evident,  of  heathen 
origin,  and  was  mixed  up  with  ideas  of  heathen  soothsaying. 
Starting  from  the  ideaof  the  "prophet  as  the  interpreter  of  Deity. 

8  conception  common  to  ( 'hristianity  with  other  forms  of  faith- 
it  taught  an  overwhelming  of  the  human  mind  and  spirit  by  divine 
power,  though  probably  never  in  such  an  ahsoluteand  unqualified 
>en^e  as  in  Montanism  and  classic  paganism. 

'1.  The  second  more  sober  and  liberal  theory  hail  its  source  in 
Palestinian  Judaism,  and  conceives  the  divine  influence  as  exerted 
rather  in  the  way  of  ' in-spiriting,'  furthering  and  assisting  the 
life  and  the  writing  of  the  holy  men. 

The   real  difference  between  the   two  views  was  involved  in 

the  question  at    issue,  viz.  :    Whether   the  condition  of  ecstasy  in 


1  Exhort.  'Hi  Cast.,  <•.  1. 
It'*,,//,,  of  the  ante  RTicene  fathers  did  fail  to  grasp  (and  this  is  by  no  means 
certain)  the  generic  and  fundamental  distinction  between  supernatural  inspi- 
ration bestowed  upon  prophets  and  apostles,  and  mere  divine  illumination 
vouchsafed  in  them  ami  their  contemporaries,  they  were  only  the  precursors 
of  a  Long  array  of  reputedly  able  and  orthodox  writers  on  inspiration  in  the 
church  <>t  tin'  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries,  \\  nose  ideas  upon  this  point 
are  certainly  confused 


IS  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ttTSPIKATION  '. 

the  penmen  was  essential  as  a  guarantee  of  the  supernatural 
character  of  the  prophecies  and  other  Scriptures. 

Representatives  of  the  former  opinion  were  found  chiefly 
among  the  Apologists. 

-lustin  Martyr  speaks  of  the  divine  plectrum  itself  descending 
from  heaven,  and  using  righteous  men  like  a  harp  or  lyre.1 

Again:  "When  von  hear  the  utterances  of  the  apostles, 
spoken  as  it  were  personally,  you  must  not  suppose  that   they 

are  spoken  by  the  inspired  themselves,  but  by  the  divine  Word 
who  moves  them."2 

Athenagoras  employs  a  figure  similar  to  that  of  Justin,  saying: 
"  The  Spirit  made  use  of  the  prophets,  as  a  flute-player  breathes 
into  a  flute."8 

lie  also  describes  the  condition  of  those  who  were  under  the 
influence  of  inspiration,  as  a  condition  of  ecstasy.  "  Moses, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah  and  other  prophets,  lifted  in  ecstasy  above  the 
natural  operations  of  their  own  minds,  by  the  impulses  of  the 
divine  Spirit,  uttered  the  things  with  which  they  were  inspired."4 

Theophilus  similarly  calls  the  sacred  writers  'instrument-. 
organs  of  God.' 

The  use  of  the  figure  of  musical  instruments  in  this  connection 
was  probably  borrowed  from  Philo,  and  shows  that  as  his  mind 
was  impregnated  with  heathen  notions  concerning  the  nature 
and  process  of  inspiration,  so  the  minds  of  most  of  the  Apolo- 
gists were  tainted  with  the  same.  This  indeed  seems  natural, 
when  we  remember  that  they  were  trained  in  heathenism,  and 
that  their  first  knowledge  of  Christian  truth  was  not  the  result 
of  logical  thought,  but  was  referred  solely  to  revelation  and  the 
action  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  whole  conception  could  not 
fail  to  receive  powerful  impression  from  traditional  habits  of 
thought  respecting  the  Sibyls,  the  Pythian  priestess  and  other 
seers  and  soothsayers  of  antiquity.  The  evidence  here  is  cumu- 
lative, and  cannot  be  given  in  detail,  but  will  repay  careful  study,5 
provided   only   it  be  constantly  borne  in  mind  that  the  idea  of 


1  Cohort.  ad  GfrcBc.,  c.  viii. 

'-'  First  Apol.,  c.  xxxvi. 

'•  l.njiit.  pro  Christ.,  v.  ix. 

*AdAutol,  ii.  !». 

5  Nitzsch,  Dogm.-gesch. ,  2.")fl-60. 


A.N    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY.  19 

prophecy   formed  the  point  of  departure  in  all  discussions  of 
this  age  upon  the  nature  of  the   inspiration  of  the  sacred  books.1 

|  It  is  worthy  of  note,  in  passing,  that  Rudelbach,  in  common 
with  various  other  orthodox  writers,  has  made  labored,  though 
ineffectual  attempts,3  to  clear  Justin  Martyr  ami  other  early 
fathers  from  the  charge  of  holding  essentially  heathen  ideas 
upon  the  nature  of  inspiration.  He  seeks  to  explain  away  the 
inferences  naturally  •  drawn  from  their  use  of  the  figure  of  mus- 
ical instruments,  and  thinks  they  did  not  with  Philo  make 
ecstasy  a  fundamental  element  of  prophecy,  nor  teach  a  motion- 
less and  iinconscions  passivity,  but  rather  an  elevated  and  illum- 
inated rational  consciousness  in  the  inspired  seer.  The  apolo- 
getic and  polemic  aim.  however,  in  Rudelbach,  Lee8,  Banner- 
man,4  ami  others  who  have  attempted  partial  sketches  of  the 
development  of  the  doctrine  of  inspiration,  i>  stronger  than  the 
true    historic    instinct.  | 

The  view  thus  indicated  of  prophetic  inspiration,  as  presup- 
posing  a  passive  state  of  absolute  receptivity,  continued  in  the 
main  the  controlling  one.  until  toward  the  middle  of  the  third 
century.  It  reached  its  climax  and  wrought  its  own  ruin  in 
the  fanatical  excesses  of  Moiitanism,  when  God-sent  madness 
or  insanity  was  demanded  as  the  test  of  the  true  prophet. 
The  mbject  of  inspiration  here  sank  into  a  state  of  delirium  and 
took  leave  of  Ids  senses;  his  spirit  slept  under  the  sole  and 
forceful  waking,  moving  influence  of  the  Paraclete.  Thus  Ter- 
tullian  >ay>  :  "To  grace  ecstasy  or  rapture  is  incident.  For 
when  a  man  is  rapt  in  the  Spirit,  especially  when  he  beholds  the 
glory  of  God,  or  when  God  speaks  through  him,  he  necessarily 
loses  his  sensation  (excidat  sensu),  because  he  is  overshadowed 
with  the  power  of  God."8  NTitzsch  thus  comments:  "The  Mon- 
tanists  sought  in  ecstasy  as  a  supernatural  medium  of  the  concep- 
tion of  the  divine,  at  the  same  time  the  satisfaction  of  a  kind   of 

mystical  voluptuousness;  and, moreover, this  is  to  them,  not  only 


'  Cremer,  747. 

•'  '/.( iisi-hr.  fur  iiii  (Itxdmmi.  I. nth.  Tiled.,  Brtt.  Quart.,  37. 

::  Inspiration  <>f  tin  Scriptures,  86  8. 

'  Inspiration  <■/  the  Scriptures,  133-4. 

•  Adv.  Mare.,  Iv  :  33. 


20  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION: 

for  the  sacred  writers,  but  above  all  for  their  own  new  prophets, 
the  sufficient  means  of  inspiration."1 

From  the  t  iine  of  Aureliusat  least  (A.I).  L61-  80),  the  more  Liberal 
view  of  inspiration  had  its  advocates  (though  in.a  minority),  and 
it  indicated  the  progressive  drift  of  thought;  but  only  in  the 
ireneral  reaction  of  the  church  against  Montanism  did  it  come  to 
the  surface,  assert  itself  with  energy,  and  finally  after  the  middle 
of  the  third  century  become  controlling  in  the  church.  The  aim 
henceforward  was  the  rigid  exclusion  of  all  heathen  elements 
from  the  conception,  especially  the  idea  of  ecstasy  or  suspension 
of  the  human  consciousness  in  the  sacred  writers.  A  human  as 
well  as  a  divine  side  was  reckoned  to  inspiration,  the  elevated  self- 
consciousness  and  spontaneous  activity  of  the  person  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost.  This  freer  view  was  chiefly,  though  not  exclu- 
sively, represented  in  the  school  of  Alexandria. 

The  author  of  the  Clementine  Homilies  holds  that  the  prophecy 
of  the  true  prophet  is  not  ecstatic ;  he  does  not  speak  in  a  state 
of  madness,  but  knows  wdiat  he  says.  Beholding  it,  he  reveals  it. 
And  what  he  reveals,  he  reveals  clearly,  unambiguously.  He 
does  not  utter  doubts  and  uncertainties. 

Miltiades,  an  Apologist,  wrote,  according  to  Eusebius,2  a  treatise 
in  the  reign  of  Aurelius,  to  prove  that  it  was  not  needful  for  the 
prophet  to  speak  in  ecstasy. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  his  Stromata,  designates  ecstasy  as 
a  characteristic  of  false  prophets  and  of  the  Evil  Spirit.  If  he 
compares  mankind  in  general  to  an  instrument  upon  which  the 
Logos  plays,  it  is  in  a  very  different  sense  from  Philo  and  Athen- 
agoras,  who  represent  it  as  a  merely  passive  organ  of  revelation.3 

Origen,  if  not  the  pioneer  in  this  process  of  theological  purga- 
tion, certainly  did  much  to  establish  upon  grounds  of  reason, 
and  to  fix  indelibly  in  the  consciousness  of  the  church  the 
higher  view  which  in  his  day  was  surely,  if  slowly  and  irregularly, 
working  its  way  to  recognition.  He  reckoned  inspiration  as  be- 
longing to  the  circle  of  church  doctrines;  and  in  the  fourth  book 
of  his  dogmatic  work  De  Princvpiis  devotes  a  special  chapter 


1  Dogm.-gesch.,  261. 
•  Hist.  Eccles. ,  v  :  IT. 
'Nitzsch,  Dogm.-gesch.,  262. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY.  21 

to  it.  Ho  avoids  the  sensuous  comparisons  employed  by  the 
Apologists,  and  thus  escapes  their  errors. 

Origen  made  at  least  a  first  approach  to  a  more  exact  definition 
of  the  nature  and  process  of  inspiration,  understanding  by  it  not 
the  mere  inponring  of  foreign  thoughts,  l»ut  an  elevation  of  the 
natural  powers  of  the  soul  through  the  touch  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Though  he  expresses  doubts  upon  some  important  points,  e.  g., 
whether  inspiration  extends  to  every  passage  of  the  word  of  God, 
vet  his  heart  and  the  general  tenor  of  his  teaching  was  true  at 
bottom, as  when  he  Bays  in  one  of  his  homilies:  "The  holy  hooks 
contain  the  fulness  of  the  Spirit,    and  neither   in  the  law,   nor   in 

the  prophets,  nor  in  the  apostolic  writings  is  there  anything 
which  has  not  its  origin  in  the  fulness  of  the  divine  Majesty." 

The  Bame  general  view  was  maintained  by  his  pupils  and  suc- 
cessors. 


V.     Degrees   of  Inspiration. 

We  have  B.een  above   that  both  Palestinian  and  Alexandrian 

.Judaism  distinguish  degrees  in  inspiration.  The  same  thing  is 
done  by  some  of  the  ante-Xicene  fathers,  though  from  a  different 
point  of   view. 

Origen  makes  the  degree  of  inspiration  dependent  upon  the 
moral  state  of  the  subject,  i.  e.,  upon  the  measure  of  his  moral 
and  personal  appropriation  of  the  divine.  lie  places  the  pro- 
phetic writings  above  all  others,  as  beginning  with  'Thussaith 
the  Lord.'  He  values  the  gospels  more  highly  than  the  epistles, 
because,  though  Jesus  and  Paul  were  both  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  vessel  of  the  latter  was  much  smaller  than  that  of 
the  former.1  lie  .-peaks  of  tin-  apostolic  writings  as  "full  of 
wisdom  and  trustworthy,'  hut   doubts  whether    Paul    intended    to 

range  his  own  under  the  head  of  'Scripture  given  by  inspiration 
of  God,' (2  Tim.  3  :  16).     He  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  Paul 

makes  a    difference    in    the    Second    Epistle    to    the    Corinthians, 

between  what  he  said  ///  his  own  spirit^  and  in  t/i>  spirit  of 
Christ.  The  former  utterances,  he  Bays,  *  are  spoken  under 
divine  impulse,  and  have  authority  and  weight,  hut  are  not  to  he 


1  Homiiy  "n  L/ukt .  \\i\ 


22  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION  '. 

derived  strictly  and  immediately  from  divine  revelation.'1  [This 
is  one  of  the  points  on  which,  as  above  indicated,  there  seems 
to  have  been  some  wavering  in  Origen's  own  mind.]  He  also 
ranks  Paul  one  degree  higher  than  Timothy  and  Lnke,  and 
finds  greater  perfection  in  Romans  than  in  any  other  of  the 
Pauline  epistles. 

2.  Tertullian  indeed  admits  degrees  in  inspiration,  but  refers 
them,  not  to  the  sacred  writers  as  compared  among  themselves, 
but  to  Christ,  the  apostles  and  prophets  on  the  one  hand,  and 
ordinary  Christians  on  the  other.  His  views,  therefore,  are  not 
pertinent  to  our  present  inquiry. 

3.  Novatian  taught2  that  the  same  Holy  Spirit  was  in 
prophets  and  apostles,  but  to  the  former  it  was  given  only  at 
certain  times  and  in  smaller  measure,  while  upon  the  latter  it 
was  bestowed  in  its  fulness,  and  as  a  perpetual  endowment. 
This  writer  clearly  held  that  the  inspiration  apparent  in  the 
w rif  'nigs  of  the  apostles  was  not  the  result  of  a  special  divine 
influence,  but  was  only  a  part  of  the  general  divine  assistance 
vouchsafed  them  in  all  their  work. 

VI.     Verbal  Inspiration. 

Did  the  early  fathers  extend  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures to  their  for-m  and  expression,  as  well  as  their  substance  ( 
This  is  a  most  important  question  in  connection  with  the  ante- 
Xicene  doctrine  of  inspiration.  It  is  generally,  though  not  uni- 
versally, answered  by  writers  on  doctrine-history  m  the  affirma- 
ti/oe.     The  facts  are  substantially  as  follows  : 

Justin  Martyr  says  :  "  The  holy  men  needed  no  art  of  words 
nor  skill  in  captious  and  contentious  speaking,"  etc.3 

Irenaeus  seems  not  only  to  have  believed  in  verbal  inspiration 
in  general,  but  (if  we  may  deduce  his  general  view  from  one 
special  passage),  to  have  held  that  the  Holy  Spirit  selected  the 
words  from  special  foresight  of  the  needs  of  future  ages.  Tims 
he  remarks:  "Matthew  might  certainly  have  said  (in  the  begin- 
ning of  his  gospel),  '  Now  the  birth  of  Jesus  was  on  thiswise;' 
but  the  Holy  G  host,  foreseeing  that  corrupters  would  arise,  (viz., 


1  Com.  ">i  .///'/.,  Vol.  I  :  c.  4. 

2  De  Trinitaie,  v.  29. 

3  Cohort '.  ii<l  OrCBCOS,  C.  8. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY.  'S-'> 

the  Gnostics  who  wished  to  distinguish  between  Jesus  and  Christ) 
and  guarding  bj  anticipation  against  their  deceit,  says:  '  But  the 
birth  of  (  IheIST  was  on  this  wise."  "' 

Yet  the  same  father  acknowledges  Imperfections8  in  the  style 
of  Paul,  and  attributes  them  to  the  impetuosity  and  fire  of  the 
ap  >stle  —in  short,  I  i  hi-  temperam 

.'!.  Tertullian  seems  clear  and  explicit  in  his  declarations :  "Our 
sacred  Scriptures,"  he  says,  "  are  the  very  words  and  letters  of 
God."  Ajb  a  Moutanist  he  could  consistently  hold  no  other  view 
than  that  of  ah-  »lute  dictation  ;  yet  expressions  occur  which  it  is 
hard  logically  to  reconcile  with  this  belief.  Hi.-  general  position, 
however,  cannot  be  considered  doubtful. 

4.  Clement  of  Alexandria  says:  "Truly  holy  are  those  letter- 
that  sanctify  and  deify,  and  the  writings  that  consist  of  those  holy 
letters  and  syllables,  this  same  apostle  (Paul)  calls  inspired  of 
God."8 

.">.  Origen  appearsto  accept  verbal  inspiration  without  qualifica- 
tion, holding  that  every  iota  of  the  Scriptures  has  a  special  value  ;' 
yet  one  finds  scattered  in  his  writings  passages  which  seem  in- 
consistent with  this  view,  us  e.  g.  when  lie  calls  attention  to  sole- 
cisms in  the  language  of  the  sacred  writers. 

6.  Ku-eliiii.-'  may  lie  credited  with  the  same  opinion,  since  he 
considers  'each  one  who  proposes  to  alter  the  words  of  the  Bible 
a-  esteeming  himself  wiser  than  the  Holy  Gho8t.' 

From  these  and  similar  testimonies  the  inference  may  be  drawn 
that  among  the  ante-Xicene  fathers  verbal  inspiration  was  in 
Borne  sense  a  general  article  of  faith,  though  some  wavered,  and 
it  is  hard  to  say  just  how  much  weight  is  to  be  given  to  indi- 
vidual utterances. 

Nltzsch8  endeavors  to  explain  away  the  force  of  such  testi- 
monies as  we  have  quoted  above, and  maintains  that,  apart  from 
the  ecst  iries  i  A r henagoras,  the  Montanists,  etc,)  no  church  teacher 
positively  and  consistently  taught  the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration. 


1  Adtl.  //"/■..  iii  :  16,  2. 
•Id.,  iii  :  T.  8. 

■  Oofoort.  ml  <!>  litis,  c.   ix. 

1    Ilnlilill/   oil    .1,  ft  III  ill ll. 

•  Hist.  /•>,•/.,  v  :  28. 
•;  Dogm.  .'/< .•"•/(.,  868. 


'24  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION  '. 

General   Conclusions. 

As  the  general  result  of  our  survey  of  the  history  of  the  doc- 
trine of  inspiration  during  the  first  three  centuries,  we  see  that 
the  Christian  church  inherited  the  idea  as  a  legacy  from  the 
Jewish,  and  extended  it  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament. 
It  was  for  the  most  part  an  article  of  faith,  rather  than  the  sub- 
ject of  curious  speculations.  No  definite  and  artificial  theory 
was  as  yet  established.  As  a  consequence,  differing  views  as  to 
the  nature  and  extent  of  the  same,  and  all  doubtful  utterances 
are  to  be  referred,  not  to  the  great  fact  itself,  but  to  the  lack  of 
clear  and  s},stematic  doctrinal  development. 


D.  POST-NICENE  AND  SUBSEQUENT  HISTORY 
OF  INSPIRATION  TO  THE  CLOSE  OF  AN- 
CIENT   CHRISTIANITY.       325—750   A.    D. 

It  will  be  convenient,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  to  group  together 
the  next  four  hundred  and  twenty-five  years  in  one  survey. 

Henceforward  inspiration  and  kindred  questions  occupy  rela- 
tively a  less  important  place  in  the  development  of  doctrine.  It 
is  easy  to  account  for  this. 

1.  The  age  of  apologies  was  past,  and  the  Montanistic  heresy 
had  received  its  death-blow,  so  that  there  seemed  neither  reason 
nor  interest  in  prolonging  a  war  of  words. 

2.  In  the  great  doctrinal  controversies  which  now  emerged,  and 
which  for  centuries  engrossed  the  attention  of  the  church, 
the  subject  did  not  come  under  special  discussion.  The  fact  of 
inspiration  was  universally  conceded,  as  it  always  had  been.  The 
idea  lay  deep  in  the  consciousness  of  the  church,  though  the  dog- 
matic conception  was  not  as  yet  strictly  and  accurately  defined. 

3.  A  rival  to  the  sole  supremacy  of  the  Scriptures  was 
rapidly  growing  up  within  the  church  :  viz.,  the  authority  of  the 
hierarchy,  especially  that  of  the  united  body  in  council  assembled. 
Conciliar  decisions  were  viewed  as  inspired,  therefore  as  infallible, 
and  of  binding  force  upon  the  conscience.  They  were  pro- 
claimed as  utterances  of  Christ,  or  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Inspi- 
ration thus  came  to  be  a  permanent   attribute   of  the  body  eccle- 


AN    OUTLINE    BI8TOBICAL    BTUDT.  25 

siastical,  and  was  no  longer  viewed  as  the  exclusive  possession  of 
a  written  code. 

I.     The   Nature   of  Inspiration. 

In  general  throughout  this  long  period,  though  perhaps  more 
especially  at  its  beginning  and  its  close,  ideas  on  this  subject  were 
strict— frequently  exaggerated,  sometimes  utterly  inconsistent. 
We  notice — 

1.  That  the  theologians  of  the  Nicene  age  inherited  from  their 
predecessors  a  tendency  to  emphasize  strongly  the  difference  be- 
tween the  inspiration  of  heathenism  and  that  of  their  own  sacred 
books.  Eusebius  attempted  to  set  forth  and  explain  the  points 
of  difference.  A  summary  of  his  statements  is  given  from  an 
old  ( ierman  writer. 

a.  The  oracular  responses  are  absurd,  immoral  and  impious,both 
in  themselves  and  in  the  practical  results  to  which  they  lead  in 
human  life.  On  the  other  hand,  men  who  '.speak  as  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,'  dissuade  from  idolatry  and  heathen  crimes, 
and  reveal  Christ,  the  great  Teacher  and  Redeemer. 

b.  Demoniac  influence  darkens  the  mind,  and  deprives  it  of  the 
use  of  reason,  so  that  the  inspired  appear  frantic.  The  divine 
Spirit,  on  the  other  hand,  who  is  himself  the  purest  light,  illu- 
mines the  soul,  and  thus  fits  it  for  the  apprehension  of  super- 
sensuous  things.  The  inspired  remain  sober  and  awake,  under- 
stand and  pass   judgment  on  the  things  they  utter. 

C.  Heathen  oracles  are  made  known  through  unworthy  men  or 
through  animals;  God's  Spirit,  on  the  other  hand,  honors  only 
such  men  with  his  influence  as  have  rendered  themselves  fit  for 
the  same  by  the  practice  of  virtue. 

2.  Ir  is  clear,  without  further  illustration,  that  the  church  held 
rigidly  for  a  considerable  period  to  the  idea,  so  emphasized  by 
Origen  and  others,  of  the  elevation  and  illumination,  not  the 
suppression  of  the  human  consciousness  of  the  person  under 
divine  influence. 

3.  Quite  inconsistently,  there  was  still  a  strong  tendency  among 
mosl  of   the  Niceneaiid  later    fathers  to  make  the   .-acred    writers 

the  mere  instruments  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  the  sole  author 

of  Scripture,  even  in  the  process  of  recording. 

[This   is  seen  in  the  legend   of  the   loss    of  the    .lewish    sacred 

B 


26  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION  : 

writings  during  the  Exile,  and  their  restoration  by  Ezra  through 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.] 

a.  Chrysostom  (f  407)  says  that  'John  and  Paul  in  their  writings 
did  not  speak  themselves,  but  that  God  spoke  through  them.'1 

lie  also  calls  the  k  the  mouth  of  the  prophets  and  apostles  the 
mouth  of  God.'2 

1).  Augustine  (f430)  speaks  of  the  apostles  as  'the  hands  who 
wrote  down  what  was  dictated  by  Christ  the  head.13  He  calls 
Holy  Scripture, '  the  venerable  stylus  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  and  de- 
clares that  L  no  word  and  no  syllable  in  the  Bible  is  superfluous, 
and  without  great  and  deep  meaning.1 

kt  I  have  learned  to  render  to  those  books  of  Scripture  alone 
which  are  now  called  canonical,  reverence  and  honor  to  such  a 
degree  that  I  most  firmly  believe  that  no  one  of  the  authors 
erred  in  writing  anything."4 

c.  Theodoret  (f  457)  held  it  to  be  a  matter  of  indifference  who 
wrote  any  of  the  sacred  books,  since  the  Holy  Ghost  was  the  real 
author. 

d.  Oassiodorus  (f  562)  speaks  of  the  Bible  as  '  a  writing  which 
was  not  invented  by  human  reason,  but  by  a  heavenly  power  was 
poured  into  the  holy  men.1  Here  is  represented  the  infusion 
both  of  ideas  and  words. 

e.  Gregory  the  Great  (f  604)  said  '  it  was  superfluous  to  ascertain 
the  author  of  any  book  of  the  Bible,  since  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
the  real  author  of  the  same  ;'  and  '  it  was  absurd  when  one  read 
the  writing  of  a  great  monarch  to  ask  what  pen  it  was  written 
with.' 

4.  Though  the  activity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  inspiration  was 
the  main  and  generally  engrossing  thought,  it  is  yet  true  that 
the  human  element  was  not  wholly  overlooked.  Something  was 
yet  attributed  to  the  individuality  and  spontaneity  of  the  sacred 
writers  themselves. 

a.  ('lirvsostoni  notices  the  alleged  discrepancies  in  the  Gospels, 
but  attributes  them  to  the  nature   and  pecularity   of    historical 


'  Evangel.  ■/<>//.,  Horn.  I. 
2  Acta  Apost. ,  Horn.  XIX. 
'■' De  Consenx.  Kiuoxjd.,  I  :  35. 
1  Wpittt.  82,   I  :  3. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDY.  l!7 

composition  as  a  human  art.1  Viewing  them  as  intrinsically  un- 
important, he  \<t  finds  in  them  valuable  evidence  of  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  writers  in  all  essential  facts.2 

c.  Jerome  (f  420)  entertained  similar  ideas.  He  bad  no  hesi- 
tation in  acknowledging  peculiarities  of  expression  and  concep- 
tion, and  diiferences  in  less  weighty  matters  among  the  apostles. 
These  are  of  jrarely  human,  not  of  divine  origin.  He  finds  va- 
rious literary  defects  in  Paul's  epistles,  and  more  than  these,  some 
traces  of  a  spirit  not  altogether  Christian.  Vet  he  views  the  whole 
human  side  of  the  Scriptures  as  subserving  in  God's  providential 
order  important  apologetic  ends. 

c.  Augustine,  speaking  of  the  minor  differences  of  the  Evan- 
gelists, says  :  "  It  is  evident  that  they  have  set  forth  these  matters 
just  in  accordance  with  the  recollection  which  each  retained  of 
them,  and  just  according  as  their  several  predilections  led  them 
to  employ  greater  brevity  or  richer  detail."3 

d.  Quite  in  the  same  line  do  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (f  429) 
and  Theodoret,  among  the  Antiochian  church-teachers,  affirm 
characteristic  peculiarities  in  the  human  authors  of  Scripture,  and 
in  their  methods  of  conceiving  truth. 

e.  Basil  the  Great  (+  379)  compares  the  sacred  writers  to  mir- 
rors, whose  surfaces,  according  to  the  degree  of  their  polish  and 
clearness,  condition  the  reception  and  reflection  of  the  images. 

."-.  From  what  has  been  already  said,  especially  from  the  extracts 
given,  one  may  form  a  general  idea  of  patristic  views  as  to  the 
nature  of  inspiration  in  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  following  centuries, 
from  these  views  there  were,  in  the  case  of  individuals,  notable 
deviations. 

a.  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  looked  at  the  inspiration  of  the  sacred 
hooks  chiefly  from  the  huma/n  point  of  view.  He  maintained,  in 
regard  to  the  writings  of  Solomon,  i.e.,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes  and 
Canticles,  that  their  author  had  nol  the  gifl  of  prophecy,  but  only 
that  of  wisdom.  The  Song  of  Songs  was  a  merely  human  writing 
— an  offensive  poem  of  Solomon's,  composed  on  the  occasion  of  his 
illegal  marriage  with  an  Egyptian  princess.     Theodore  dealt  very 


NTeander,  Hist.  of  Ohr.  Dogm.,  I  :  280-1. 

•  Homily  <</<  Matt.,  I  :  'J. 
/>■  Conn  „.v.  Evangel.,  II  :  12  (p.  282) 


28  TIIK    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION  : 

freely  also  with  the  book  of  Job,  censuring  the  author  for  ambi- 
tion, and  for  offensive  allusions  to  heathen  mythology.  Some 
truer  ideas  seem  also  to  have  taken  possession  of  bis  mind.  He 
made  a  distinction  between  the  conscious  thought  and  intent  of 
the  sacred  writers  themselves,  and  of  the  higher  mind  and  mean- 
ing of  the  Spirit  who  spoke  through  them.  Tie  also  eombatted 
the  ideas  of  those  who  were  supremely  bent  on  finding  a  full- 
fledged  system  of  theology  in  the  Old  Testament,  Unfortunately 
his  zeal  carried  him  too  far  in  the  opposite  direction.  For  these 
and  other  heresies  he  was  condemned  by  the  Fifth  (Ecumenical 
Council,  553  A.  D. 

Equally  unorthodox  ideas  appear  in  the  writings  of  Junilius, 
an  African  bishop  of  the  sixth  century.  Thus  in  answer  to  the 
question,  '  How  is  the  authority  of  the  sacred  books  to  be  con- 
sidered V  he  replies  :  "  Some  are  of  perfect  authority,  some  of 
partial  authority,  and  some  of  none  at  all."1  In  the  second  class, 
he  enumerates  Job,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  etc.;  in  the  third,  our  Old 
Testament  Apocrypha. 

II.  Degrees  of  Inspiration. 

In  regard  to  this  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  such  difference 
was  not  and  could  not  generally  be  admitted  by  the  church  of  this 
age,  being  precluded  by  prevailing  views  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
divine  influence  exerted  upon  the  human  organs.  Certain  writers, 
however,  appear  to  favor  it,  viz. :  Basil  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 
just  quoted. 

III.  Verbal   Inspiration. 

This  was  most  commonly  recognized,  as  will  appear  by  consulting 
the  citations  given  abovie  under  1:1.  It  was  believed  that  in  the 
sacred  records  there  exists  nothing  in  any  wise  superflous.  Every 
word  and  syllable  has  an  important  aim,  and  every  proposition 
embraces  in  itself  an  inexhaustible  richness  of  thought. 

IV.  General   Conclusions. 

In  one  word,  at  the  close  of  ancient  Christianity,  little  interest 
was  felt  in  the  question  of  inspiration.     It  was  quite  overshad- 


1  De  Part.  Div.  Leg.,  I  :  8. 


\.\    OUTLINE    BI8TOBN  AX    STUDY.  -!'.' 

owed  by  others  of  greater  apparent  importance.  The  strictesl 
ideae  prevailed  both  as  to  its  nature  and  extent,  bnt  these  were 
based  upon  merely  mechanical  assent  to  the  statements  of  earlier 
fathers,  and  not  upon  any  intelligent  and  impartial  investigations 
of  the  facts  and   teachings  of    the   sacred    records   themselves. 

There   was  a  relapse   toward  the  ideas  and  views  of  paganism  and 

Alexandrian  Judaism  upon  the  subject.  Like  many  other  vital 
doctrines  of  theology,  that  of  inspiration  seemed  to  suffer  a  well- 
nigh  total  eclipse. 


E.     THE   DOCTRINE   OF    INSPIRATION    DURING 
THE    MIDDLE   AGES.       750—1517   A.    D. 

The  Middle  Ages  constitute  almost  a  blank  in  the  history  of 
the  doctrine  of  inspiration — in  fact  quite  a  blank,  so  far  as  pro- 
gressive development  is  concerned.  The  subject  was  indeed 
discussed  in  the  general  connection  of  the  Scholastic  system,  but 
there  was  little  interest  in  it,  primarily  because  a  continuously 
in-pi  red  church  and  infallible  tradition  occupied  in  the  minds  of 
the  multitude  the  place  of  religious  authority  otherwise  ascribed 
to  an  inspired  hook.  The  orthodox  belief  generally  remained 
in  the  ascendant,  but  ideas  were  exaggerated  and  indefinite.  This 
appears  from  the  fact  that  now,  as  at  the  very  first  among  the 
Apologists, prophecy  formed  the  great  centre  around  which  the 
whole  conception  turned. 

The  utterances  of  the  Mediaeval  theologians  on  inspiration  are 
so  few,  vague  and  disjointed  as  to  be  incapable  of  classification 
under  prop"er  headings.  We  must  be  content  here  to  state  the 
views  of  a  few  authors  in  chronological  order. 

I.     John   of  Damascus. 

John  of  Damascus,  (f  cire.  760),  is  the  first  writer  who 
conie-  under  our  notice.  Though  he  attempted  the  construction 
of  a  doctrinal  system,  and  'concentrated  in  himself  the  expiring 
energies  of  Greek  tl logy,'  yet  he  makes  no  definite  deliver- 
ance on  this  subject.  He  employs  revelation  and  Holy  Scrip- 
ture as  interchangeable  terms  and  says:1     "By  the  Holy  Ghost, 


1  i),  r;,!,  Orthod.,  IV..  c.  17. 


30  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION: 

both  law  and  prophets,  evangelists,  apostles,  pastors  and  teachers 
spoke.  '  All  Scripture,  therefore,  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,,' 
2.  Tim.  3  :  16."  Little  more  than  this  can  be  gleaned  from  his 
writings. 

II.  Fridegisus. 

Fridegisus,  Abbot  of  Tours  and  pupil  of  Alcnin,  appears  as 
an  advocate  of  verbal  inspiration  in  the  most  rigid  sense,  main- 
taining that  the  divine  Spirit  inspired  not  only  the  meaning  of 
the  Scriptures,  their  contents  and  methods  of  expression,  but 
actually  formed  the  very  words  in  the  mouths  of  the  writers. 
He  appears  also  to  extend  infallibility  even  to  translators  and 
commentators.1 

III.  Agobard. 

Agobard,  Archbishop  of  Lyons  (f  841)  stoutly  opposed  these 
extreme  views,  and  held  them  up  to  ridicule,  by  showing  the 
absurd  consequences  to  which  they  led.2  He  had  some  concep- 
tions of,  though  he  did  not  fully  develop,  the  distinction  of  the 
divine  and  human  elements  in  the  Scriptures.3  He  conceded 
also  the  existence  of  grammatical  inaccuracies  there,  which,  how- 
ever, should  be  attributed  not  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  to  man, 
who  is  responsible  for  the  form  of  the  language.  The  essence 
of  inspiration  consists  in  the  general  character  of  the  contents, 
not  in  the  mere  words  themselves. 

IV.  Euthymius   Zigabenus. 

Euthymius  Zigabenus  (about  1116)  indirectly  discloses  his  views 
respecting  inspiration,  when  he  accounts  for  the  insertion  of 
given  particulars  in  one  gospel,  and  their  omission  in  another,  by 
the  fact  of  the  greater  or  less  completeness  and  exactness  of 
the  recollections  of  the  writers.  This  again  is  explained  by  the 
fact  that  they  composed  their  narratives  at  some  considerable 
time  after  the  occurrence  of  the  events  themselves.1 


'Hagenbach,  Hist.  Doct.,  I  :  425. 
8  Adv.  Frklegis. ,  c.  12. 
:  Neander,  Church  History. 
1  Comment.  Mutt.,  XII  :  8. 


AN    OUTLINE    historical    STUDY.  31 

V.  Anselm. 

Ansrliii.  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (+  1109)  indulged  in  no 
sceptical  questionings  of  the  orthodox  theory  of  inspiration,  hut 
set  himself  to  give  a  rational  account  of  the  contents  of  his  faith 
concerning  it.  He  devoted  whole  nights  to  the  consideration  of 
various  intricate  questions  connected  with  the  dogma,  especially 
how  the  prophets  could  view  the  future  as  present.  By  a  broad 
generalization  from  a  kind  of  vision  in  which  he  was  enabled  to 
look  through  a  stone  wall  and  see  the  monks  celebrating  mass, 
be  concluded  that  as  Bpace  had  been  annihilated  for  him,  so  the 
other  dimension  was  done  away  for  the  prophets  under  inspiration. 
Things  to  come  were  revealed  to  them  as  present. 

This  method  of  argumentation  certainly  possessed  the  method 
of  originality,  if  no  other  excellence-. 

VI.  Abelard. 

Ahelanl's  el-  1  L42)  whole  conception  of  the  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion was  verv  loose.  In  the  introduction  to  his  Sic  et  yon. 
lie  explicitly  denied  that  prophets  and  apostles  were  infallible.1 
He  distinguished  degrees  in  the  bestowment  of  the  divine  in- 
fluence, and  held  that  the  prophets  did  not  always  speak  under 
the  impulse  of  the  Spirit,  even  when  they  thought  they  did. 
They  were  allowed  to  mingle  truth  with  error,  and  the  natural 
with  the  supernatural,  in  order  to  keep  them  humble,  and  lead 
them  to  discriminate  more  carefully  between  their  own  utterances 
and  those  proceeding  from  the  Spirit  of  God. 

VII.  Thomas   Aquinas. 

Thomas  (f  1274)  expresses  himself  upon  the  question 
of     inspiration    with     more    fnlness,    precision    and    clearness 

than    is   usual    with    the   Scholastics.      He   makes  (hid   the  author 

of  Scripture,  hut,  like  A.belard  admits  degrees  in  the  divine 
influence  exerted  upon  the  sacred  writers.  He  distinguishes 
express  revelation  from  an  instinct  which  the  human  mind  may 
possess  sometimes  unconsciously.  This  divine  instinct  is  a  lower 
degree  of   inspiration   than  prophetic  certainty?    Thomas  also 


1  Sir  if  Won.,  I-Mii.  (  Musin,  p.  11. 
Baur,  Dogm.  gesch.,  1 1  :  886. 


32  THE    DOCTEINE   OF    INSPIRATION: 

calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  divine  illumination  may  relate  to 
strictly  supernatural  matters,  or  may  merely  be  designed  to  give 
perfect  certainty  concerning  those  tilings  which  the  human 
mind  can  apprehend  by  its  own  unaided  powers.  The  former 
is  exemplified  in  the  case  of  the  authors  of  the  Ilagiographa, 
the  latter  in  the  prophets  properly  so  called.  The  nearer  to 
Christ  the  greater  was  the  degree  of  illumination,  until  when 
Christ  came  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity  was  revealed.  For 
this  reason  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  rank  higher  than 
Moses.1 

Revelation  may  lie  made  in  four  ways:  through  inward 
enlightenment,  which  elevates  the  mental  powers,  through  the 
communication  of  ideas,  through  images  of  the  i/maginaiion  and 
through  the  perception  of  sensuous  objects,  as  e.  g.  the  burning 
bush  of  Moses.  Thomas  does  not  appear  to  have  regarded  the 
activity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  inspiration  as  violent,  or  as  crippling 
in  any  way  the  spontaneity  of  his  human  organs. 

VIII.  The   Scholastics. 

These  theologians  generally  did  little  toward  defining  and  de- 
veloping the  idea  of  inspiration.  For  the  most  part  they  accepted 
the  traditional  doctrine,  assumed  it  as  a  first  principle  admitted 
by  all,  and  made  it  a  basis  for  further  theological  investigation. 
There  seemed  to  be  no  need  of  proving,  explaining  or  applying 
that  which  was  unquestioned  in  the  church. 

IX.  The   Mystics. 

The  Mystics  had  naturally, —  or  at  least  should  have  had, —  a 
keener  sense  of  the  divine  wisdom  and  power  displayed  in  the 
composition  of  the  Scriptures,  than  the  average  Scholastic.  To 
the  Bible  the  more  evangelical  among  them  adhered,  confessing 
it  to  be  in  some  special  sense  the  Word  of  God.  Yet  the  truly 
Biblical  idea  of  inspiration  was  obscured,  if  not  wholly  lost,  for 
the  great  majority  of  them,  by  belief  in  the  continued  presence 
of  this  miraculous  power  in  the  church,  and  by  confounding  the 
nature  of  inspiration  proper  with  that  of  divine  illumination  in 
general.       Abstraction  from    the  outward,  close  contemplation  of 

• 

1  Cremer,  753. 


\.\    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY.  ;!;'> 

things  eternal  and  divine,  -even  the  immediate  vision  of  the 
face  <>t"  G-od  was  not  only  possible  to  man,  but  was  the  free 
privilege  of  him  who  would  seek  it  in  the  way  appointed. 
Diviue  visits  and  immediate  revelations  were  esteemed  matters 
of  common  experience  among  men  of  their  own  school  of  faith. 
They  thus  became  objects  of  lawful  desire  and  expectation. 
All  this,  indeed  the  whole  grotesque  and  exaggerated  concep- 
tion of  the  supernatural  in  mediaeval  Christianity,  tended  to 
obliterate  the  distinction  between  the  Immediate  inspiration  be- 
stowe,d  upon  prophets  and  apostles,  and  the  general  enlighten- 
ment of  ordinary  believers. 

Another  tendency  of  Mysticism  operated  in  the  same  direction. 
Absorption  in  (rod,  loss  of  human  will,  desire  and  conscious- 
ness in  the  divine,  of  course  meant  the  identification  of  man 
with  (rod.  Deity  dwelt,  it  was  said,  within  the  recesses  of 
the  human  spirit,  and  needed  only  to  he  roused  to  activity  : 
every  objective  element  in  religion  must  retire  before  that 
which  is  subjective — what  was  this  hut  pantheism,  and  that  more 
than  half-fledged  '.  Not  a  few  among  the  mystic  sects  went 
quite  oyer,  embracing  pantheistic  tenets  in  all  their  Length 
and  breadth.  No  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
it  is  plain,  could  find  room  here.  There  was  nothing  to  distin- 
guish it  from  the  ravings  of  fanatical  enthusiasm  on  the  one 
hand,  or  the  phenomena  of  human  genius  on  the  other. 

Save  in  the  development  of  a  biblical  tendency,  mysticism 
contributed  little  to  the  growth  and  progress  of  the  great  doc- 
trine with  which  we  are  concerned. 

1.   Tauler. 

John  Tauler  (f  L361 i.  a  noted  evangelical  mystic,  has  an  utter- 
ance on  inspiration  which  may  he  worth  quoting,  as  relating  to 
the  extent  of  the  divine  influence  upon  the  sacred  writers  in 
secular  matters.1 

"Did  the  disciple  in  the  highest  school  of  the  Spirit  obtain 
an  insight  into  all  those  sciences  which  are  learned  in  the  school 
of  nature?     I   answer 'Yes';    it  was  given  them  to  understand 

all  science,  whether  touching  the  courses  of  the  heavenly  bodies 
or  what  not,  in  bo   far  as  it  might  conduce  to  God's  glory,  or  con- 

1  Bui  Bee  Tauler' t  Bekeh/rung  von  II  8.  DeniJU  :  also  review  of  Bame  in 
Presbyterian  /i'<<;<,r,  July,  1881. 

6 


34  THE    DOOTKINE    OF    INSPIRATION  I 

cern  the    salvation   of  man  ;   but  those  points  of  science   which 
bear  n»>  fruits  for  the  soul,  they  were  not  given  to  know." 

X.     Forerunners   of  the    Reformation. 

It  is  to  those  who  are  usually  called  '  forerunners  of  the 
Reformation  '  that  we  naturally  look  for  the  fullest,  clearest  and 
loftiest  ideas  of  inspiration  possible  to  this  age.  But  our  ex- 
pectations are  only  partially  realized. 

1.  WioUf. 

Weseareh  the  writings  of  Wiclif  (fl384)  in  vain  for  any  extended 
formal  discussion  of  the  subject,  though  he  published  a  treatise, 
lOf  the  Truth  of  Hbl/y  Scriptwe?  Bred  to  scholastic  habits  of 
thought,  and  to  the  acceptance  of  prevalent  views  respecting 
the  two-fold  source  of  Christian  knowledge  in  reason  and  authority 
(which  latter,  nominally  including  Scripture,  really  meant  eccle- 
siastical tradition),  the  reformer  could  work  his  way  but  slowly 
to  that  point  where  he  could  openly  confess  the  exclusive  and 
decisive  divine  authorityof  Scripture.  He  says  that  Scripture  '  is 
the  word  of  God  ' — -that '  it  is  the  will  and  testament  of  God  the 
Father,  which  cannot  be  broken  ' — and  yet  again  that  '  God  and 
his  word  are  one,  and  cannot  be  separated  the  one  from  the  other'.1 
He  declares  Christ  to  be  the.  proper  author  of  Scripture,  and  in- 
fers from  this  fact  its  absolute  authority.  As  Christ  is  infi- 
nitely superior  to  every  other  man,  so  is  the  book  which  is  his  law 
to  every  other  writing  which  can  be  named.2  lie  makes  the 
Bible  the  supreme  standard  by  which  even  the  doctrines  of  the 
church-fathers  are  to  be  tried. 

While  missing,  then,  in  Wiclif  all  abstract  discussions  of  the 
question  of  inspiration,  especially  theorizing*  as  to  its  nature  or 
extent,  we  do  see  his  ardent  belief  in  the  fact  brought  out,  and 
the  general  complexion  of  his  views.  We  are  really  at  no  loss  to 
know  where  he  stood. 

2.  Savonarola. 

Savonarola  (f  1495)  was  orthodox  in  reference  to  our  doctrine 
according  to  the  idea  of  his  time,  though  his  opinions  had  a  de- 


Lechler,  Life  of  Wiclif,  II  :  10-20. 
•Id.,  p.  20. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDY.  35 

cidedly  mystical  tinge.  lie  attributed  unique  inspiration  to  the 
Scriptures,  but  conceived  that  the  energy  and  operation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  were  directed  rather  to  impressing  truth  on  the  minds  and 
hearts  of  hia  human  organs,  than  t<>  mechanical  composition  upon 
tables  of  stone  or  pieces  of  parchment.  He  held  that  the  in- 
spired writers  retained  their  self-consciousness,  spontaneity  and 
other  individual  mental  characteristics.  He  fell,  however,  into  the 
common  error  of  maintaining  the  conti/nuance  of  inspiration, 
which  he  attributed,  in  the  form  of  prophecy,  to  himself. 

3.  John   Wessel. 

W  ox  -I  I  f  1 48!  I),  who  was  a  contemp  ►rary  of  $a  vonarola,  treats  the 
question  of  inspiration  at  Length,  but  in  such  a  way  as  to  show 
that  his  ideas  were  not  free  from  confusion,  especially  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  process.  As  LTllinann  expresses  it:  "On  the 
one  hand,  as  he  is  convinced,  a  certain  amount  of  imperfection 
cleaves  to  every  human  notion  of  revelation.  The  subject  is 
never  exhausted  in  the  description;  the  substance  always 
Stretches  beyond  the  form."  "On  the  other  hand,  he  adheres 
firmly  to  the  strict  notion  of  inspiration,  and  looks  upon  Scrip- 
ture, both  in  its  totality  and  in  its  minutest  facts,  as  a  thor- 
oughly divine  work."1 

XI.     The  Jewish  Doctrine. 

The  Jewish  doctors  of  the  Middle  Ages  sought  to  build  up  a 
theory  of  inspiration  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Talmud  and 
Aristotelic  philosophy.  The  tracing  of  its  details  is  of  nospecial 
importance  to  our  immediate  purpose.  A  lew  general  statements 
will  suffice. 

Like  the  early  Christian  Apologists,  and  the  contemporary 
Schoolmen,  the  Rabbin.-  could  conceive  thedoctrine  only  from  the 
Standpoint  and  under  the  typical  form  of  prophecy.  Their  de- 
velopment of  the  same  was  marred  by  gross  contradictions.  They 
wavered  notably  in  their  idea  of  the 

1.  Nature 
of  the  prophetic  condition.   Sometimes  it  was  represented  as  one, 
not  merely  of  pure  passivity,  but  of  absolute  ecstasy  Inthestrict- 
est  sense  of  the  word.-     Maimonides  declares  that  every  vision  is 


1  Reformers  bqfort  tin  Reformation,  II  :  L30. 

1  Rudelbach,  Zeittch.  fSr  du  Gesammi.  Luther.  Theol.,  Zweit.  Quart.,  64 


3t>  THE    DOCTKLNE    OF    INSl'IKATh  >N  I 

accompanied  with  a  state  of  panic  terror,  and  that  all  the  senses 

rest  from  their  functions.1  lie  quotes  Daniel  \  :8  If.  in  proof  of 
his  assertion. 

None  the  less  was  it  maintained  that  the  Beer  could  exercise  his 
office  only  in  a  calm  and  joyous  frame  of  mind,  because  k  proph- 
ecy could  not  dwell  amid  confusion  of  the  senses  or  pain,  but  only 
in  the  midst  of  joy.1 

Rudelbach  observes  that  both  of  these  definitions  must  betaken 
as  imperfect  attempts  to  explain  that  which  the  Scripture  em- 
braces under  the  common  name  of  prophecy.2 

Various  degrees  of  inspiration  in  prophecy  were  admitted. 
Maimonides  attempted  to  determine  them  at  '  eleven  or  eight,' 
of  which  the  first  two  could  only  by  a  figure  of  speech  be  reck- 
oned to  the  head  of  prophecy.  Albo  reduced  these  to  four,  and 
Abarbanel  to  three,  corresponding  to  the  three-fold  division  of 
the  Jewish  Scriptures  into  the  Law,  Prophets  and  Hagiographa.3 
The  Law  embodied  the  highest  stage  of  prophecy,  and  was  the 
fountain-head  of  revelation  ;  the  Prophets  ranked  next,  while  the 
Hagiographa,  being  given  not  by  the  '  Spirit  of  prophecy,' but 
only  by  that  of  'holiness,'  could  not  be  considered  as  in  any  real 
sense  inspired  at  all.3 

Maimonides  (fll04),  the  only  one  of  the  later  Jewish  doctors 
whose  opinion  is  of  especial  historical  importance,  far  from  conced- 
ing that  the  Bible  was  the  pure  product  of  the  divine  activity  upon 
the  human  spirit,  saw  in  it  a  book  differing  from  other  books,  even 
on  its  religions  side,  not  in  kind,  but  only  in  degree.  The  me- 
diaeval Spanish  rabbi  here  shaped  the  thinking  of  the  great  Jewish 
pantheist  of  the  seventeenth  century,  Spinoza,  through  him  in- 
fluenced the  later  German  rationalism,  and  thus  powerfully, 
though  mediately,  the  English  thought  of  our  own  age. 

XII.     General  Conclusions. 

If  now  we  ask  what  is  the  significance  of  the  Middle  Ages,  as 
a  whole,  for  the  history  of  our  doctrine,  it  is  hard  to  make  answer. 


1  Mtaimon.,  Moreh  NebueMm,  P.  II.,  c.  41. 

1  Zeitseh.  fur  du  Qes.  Lath.  TheoL,  Zw.  Quart.,  54. 

8 Rudelbach,  Zeitseh.  dr.,  57. 


AN    OUTLINE    B38TOBICAL    BTUDY.  3 . 

So  far  as  progressive  development  is  concerned,  really  nothing. 
In  the  genera]  preparation  for  the  Reformation,  however,  espe- 
cially for  the  enunciation  of  its  formal  principle  of  the  sole  au- 
thority and  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  as  a  rule  of  faith  and 
practice — above  all  in  the  growth  of  the  biblical  factor  in  mysti- 
cism, we  may  trace  the  opening  of  the  way  for  the  subsequent 
definition,  formulation  and  elevation  of  the  doctrine  to  its  proper 
place  in  the  system  of  Protestant  theology. 


F.     THE    DOCTRINE    OF .  INSPIRATION    DURING 
THE    REFORMATION    ERA. 

As  Scholasticism  left  the  idea  of  inspiration  undeveloped,  so 
the  views  of  the  leading  reformers  on  the  subject  were  in  many 
respects  indefinite.  The  matter  did  not  come  up  for  specific  dis- 
cussion, inasmuch  as  it  did  not  form  a  subject  of  controversy  with 
Kome.  All  parties  agreed  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  are  the  word  of  God,  and  authoritative  in  mat- 
ters of  faith  and  practice.  Subordinate  differences,  however,  did 
exist  among  the  reformers  in  reference  to  the  nature  and  extent 
of  inspiration  ;  and  these  appear,  not  as  formally  stated  in  express 
theories,  but  rather  as  incidentally  developed  in  various  utterances 
concerning  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

I.     Erasmus. 

It  lay.  as  Kahnis  admits,1  in  the  very  nature  of  Humanism,  with 
all  its  emphasis  of  the  biblical  principle,  to  take  a  'very  free 
view  of  the  human  side  of  Scripture.  Thus  Erasmus  (fl530) 
said:  "Only  Christ  ig  free  from  error.  The  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture is  not  destroyed  it'  the  sacred  writer-  do  sometime.-  disagree 
in  word  or  meaning,  provided  only  there  remain.-  unmoved  the 
sum  total  of  that  upon  which  rots  our  salvation. 

The  divine   Spirit    who   controlled    the  minds    of  the   apostles 

suffered  them  to  be  ignorant  of  some  things,    -sometimes  to  mis- 
take and  err  in  judgment  or  affection,  though  never  to  the  preju- 
dice of  the  gospel." 
This  utterance  he  subsequently  recalled. 


1  Duther.  Dogm.,  [:874 


38  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION: 

II.     Luther. 

The  general  attitude  of  Luther  on  the  subject  of  inspiration 
was  that  of  freedom,  though  in  matters  of  detail  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  he  stands  in  dogmatic  contradiction  with  himself.  All 
becomes  clear  only  "upon  careful  consideration,  both  of  the  man 
himself  in  his  personal  character  and  experience,  and  of  the 
theologian,  especially  his  views  on  the  general  doctrine  of  the 
Scriptures.  This  lies  beyond  our  present  purpose.  We  can  at- 
tempt only  the  briefest  outline  of  the  subject  immediately  in 
question. 

1.  Luther  calls  the  Bible  '  the  greatest  and  best  book  of  God,' 
sees  in  it  the  4  living  truth  of  the  Holy  Spirit,'  and  exalts  it  as 
4  the  only  source  of  knowledge  of  the  pure  apostolic  word,'  and 
as  '  the  only  test  and  rule  of  the  Christian  life.' 

2.  He  concedes  a  union  of  the  divine  and  human  factors  in  in- 
spiration :  and  it  is  in  this  very  distinction  that  one  finds  the  se- 
cret of  his  two-fold  and  apparently  inconsistent  method  of  speak- 
ing of  the  Scriptures.  The  Holy  Spirit,  by  his  illuminating 
power,  secured  in  the  minds  of  the  biblical  writers  all  needful 
knowledge  of  divine  truth,  but  this  truth  took  on  a  human  form, 
and  thus  became  their  inward  personal  possession.  These  writers 
made  use  of  their  own  faculties  in  the  attainment  of  historical 
knowledge,  '  but  they  sifted  it,  arranged  it,  and  set  it  in  the  true 
divine  light  by  the  power  of  the  illuminating  Spirit  working  in 
them.'  1  Thus  Luther  calls  the  books  of  Moses,  k  writings  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,'  while  he  supposes  that  the  legislator  derived  his 
laws  from  the  traditional  customs  of  the  fathers  of  the  Jewish 
nation.  Of  the  prophets,  he  says :  "  Doubtless  the  prophets 
studied  Moses,  and  the  later  prophets  studied  the  earlier  ones,  and 
wrote  down  in  a  book  their  good  thoughts  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

All  this  goes  to  show  that  Luther  entertained  no  mechanical  view 
of  inspiration,  but  held  that  the  Holy  Ghost  made  use  of  the  hu- 
man individuality  of  the  Scripture  waiters  as  his  free  organs.2 

3.  As  Luther  insisted  on  the  independence  of  faith  with  ref- 
erence to  the  Scriptures,  and  demanded  that  it  exercise  the  critical 


'Dorncr,  Mod.  Prot.,  Theol.,  1:255. 
•  Kalinis,  Luther.  Dogm.,  275. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY.  39 

office  with  regard  to  the  canon,  we  arc  not  surprised  at  the  way 
in  which  he  himself  proceeded  to  the  practical  execution  of  the 
task. 

He  freely  conceded  the  existence  of  imperfections  and  error.-  in 
the  sacred  record.-,  arising  cither  from  undue  haste,  or  from  for- 
getfulnesson  the  part  of  their  authors :  Buch,e.g.,  as  Paul's  use  of 
the  allegory  of  Hagar  and  Lshmacl  <Oal.  4:  22),  and  Peter'.-  allu- 
siou  to  Christ's  preaching  to  the  spirits  in  prison  (1  Peter,  3 :  19). 
'All  in  the  Bible  is  not  pure  silver^  gold  and  precious  stones; 
one  must  look  to  find  along  with  these  hay,  straw,  stubble.'  Still 
no  harm  is  done,  he  thinks,  provided  only  the  foundation  is  well 
laid.     This  is  always  the  main  thing  to  be  regarded.1 

It  may  be  well  to  notice  (though  not  quite  germane  to  our  im- 
mediate subject),  that  Luther  attributed  very  unequal  value  to 
different  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Of  the  former, 
lie  prized  the  Psalms  most  highly,  while  he  rejected  Esther  and 
Ecclesiastes  as  nncanonical,  declared  the  history  of  Jonah  so  mon- 
strous as  t<»  be  absolutely  incredible,  rated  Chronicles  as  of  in- 
ferior authority  to  Kings,  thought  that  other  books  suffered  re- 
vision by  unknown  hands,  and  doubted  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the    Pentateuch. 

In  the  New  Testament,  he  assigned  the  chief  rank  to  the  gos- 
pel of  John  ('the  one  unique,  tender,  true,  main  gospel,  far  to  be 
preferred  to  the  others'),  the  Pauline  epistles  (especially  those  to 
the  Romans,  Galatians  and  Ephesians),  and  the  First  of  Peter. 
The  epistle  of  James,  he  designated  as  an  *  epistle  of  straw,'  'with 
nothing  evangelical  about  it,'  because  it  exalts  good  works  as  re- 
lated to  faith.  lie  felt  the  absence  of  the  apostolic  spirit  in  the 
epistle    to   the    Hebrews,    (which    lie   attributed    to   A  polios,)  and 

refused  either  an  apostolic  or  prophetic  character  to  the  Apoca- 
lypse. He  says:  "I  certainly  cannot  detect  any  trace  of  its 
having  been  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

He  specifies  certain  books  which  he  regards  as  the  kernel  and 
marrow  of  the  sacred  canon,  because  of  their  abundant  testimony 
to  ( Ihrist. 

Wrtness  to  Christ,  and  not  apostolic  authorship  is  in  his 
opinion  the  universal  test  df  inspiration  and  canonicity.  "What 
doe-  not    teach   (  'hrist,  this  is  not  apostolic  even  though  Peter  or 


1  Baur,  Dogm.-ge8ch.,  Ill:  60. 


40  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    INSPIRATION: 

Paul  teach  it.  And  again,  what  teaches  Christ,  that  is  apostolic, 
even  if  Judas,  Annas,  Pilate  and  Herod  teach  it."1 

We  see  from  this  that  the  critical  spirit  had  been  awakened  in 
Luther's  mind  in  reaction  against  the  easy  and  unquestioning  cred- 

ulity  of  the  church  in  which  he  had  been  trained.  Although  this 
spirit  proceeded  from  and  was  governed  by  a  living  faith,  rather 
than  by  a  merely  intellectual  interest  and  curiosity,  yet  it  was  not 
sufficiently  well  instructed  to  restrain  itself  within  due  bounds. 

4.  To  hi;  at  all  consistent  with  himself,  Luther  should  have  res- 
olutely rejected  the  strict  theory  of  inspiration,  which  applied  it 
to  the  form  as  well  as  to  the  substance — the  words  as  well  as  the 
thoughts  of  the  Scriptures.  This  he  did  in  general.  lie  would 
acknowledge  no  mechanical  dictation  of  phraseology  on  the  part 
of  the  inspiring  Spirit  to  the  sacred  writers. 

In  his  doctrine  of  the  sacraments,  however,  he  was  compelled 
to  contradict  himself,  and  make  everything  dependent  on  word 
and  letter.  Here  he  found  the  Bible  '  a  book  in  which  more  de- 
pended on  a  single  letter  or  a  turn  of  the  same,  than  on  heaven 
and  earth.' 

5.  It  is  evident,  from  what  has  already  been  said,  that  Luther  ad- 
mitted degrees  in  inspiration,  which  he  determined  according  to 
the  measure  in  which  certain  doctrines  were  more  or  less  clearly, 
intelligibly  and  convincingly  set  forth. 

III.  Melancthon. 

Heppe  has  said  that  no  traces  of  a  proper  theory  of  inspiration 
are  to  be  found  in  Melancthon.  No  inference,  however,  is  to  be 
drawn  from  this  as  to  the  doctrinal  unsoundness  of  the  reformer 
oil  this  subject.  He  clearly  taught  the  infallibility  of  the  apos- 
tles in  the  .statement,  if  not  in  the  amplication  of  doctrinal 
truth. 

IV.  Zwingle. 

Zwingle  docs  not,  in  his  writings,  enter  into  detailed  statements 
concerning  the  theory  of  inspiration.  His  views,  however,  while 
preserving  some  features  in  common  with  those  of  Luther,  appear 
to  have  been  much  sounder,  more  churchly,  and  comparatively 
free  from  the  exaggerations  of  a  critical  spirit.     They  were  de- 


1   /'ii fur,    h>  h)iis//r  of  ,ln nits. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDY.  4-1 

terinined  by  the  fact  that  in  the  Bible  he  found  that  pest  from 
doubt  and  disquiet  of  conscience  which  he  sought  in  vain  from 
philosophy  and  scholasticism. 

1.  He  held  that  the  Scriptures  are  from  God;  that  they  con- 
tain the  infallible  revelation  of  his  character  and  will,  and  form 
the  only  and  sufficient  sourer  of  knowledge  in  matters  of  faith,  as 
well  asan  unerring  rule  in  the  conduct  of  daily  life. 

•_'.  Like  Luther,  he  seems  to  have  conceded  the  existence  of 
some  distinction  between  the  Scriptures  and  the  word  of  God, 
finding  the  latter  imbedded  in  the  former  like  gold  in  the  rock. 

lie  admitted  inaccuracies  of  historical  statement  in  the  Bible, 
and  consequently  could  not  predicate  absolute  infallibility  of  every 
writer  on  every  subject.  His  words  are  as  follows:  "  It  is  not 
true  that  the  writings  of  all  holy  men  are  infallible;  nor  is  it  true 
that  they  do  not  err.  This  preeminence  must  be  given  to  the  Son 
of  God  alone,  out  of  the  whole  human  race." 

This  admission,  however,  did  not  interfere  with  the  exalted 
estimate  which  he  placed  upon  the  Bible,  or  with  the  unique  po- 
sition which  he  assigned  to  it. 

.'!.    He  denied  the  cauonicity  of  the  Apocalypse. 

V.     Calvin. 

Calvin's  views  of  inspiration  were  much  stricter  than  those  of 
cither  Luther  or  Zwingle,  a8  he  maintained  approximately  what 
is  known  as  the  '  plenary  theory.1  To  mention  some  specific  dif- 
ferences between  Calvin  and  other  reformers  on  the  subject,  we 
note  : 

1.  lie  did  not,  like  others,  distinguish  the  form  from  the  sub- 
stance of  Christian  truth,  but  extended  the  influence  of  inspira- 
tion tO  both. 

2.  He  refused  to  grtfnt  Buch  free  .-cope  for  the  exercise  of  the 
critical  spirit  as  Luther  had  done. 

'■'>.  He  gave  preference  to  the  formal  over  the  material  princi- 
ple of  the  Reformation,  i.  e.,  dwelt  more  on  the  authority  and 
sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  than  on  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith. 

4.  lie  extended  the  infallibility  and  authoritativeness  of  the 
Scriptures  not  only  to  matters  n\'  doctrine,  but  also  to  those  of 
discipline  and  life.  Hence  his  presbyterian  church  polity  and 
theocratic  civil  government  for  Geneva. 


42  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    IXsl'i  ration  ; 

Calvin  calls  God 'the  author  of  the  Scriptures,"  notes  their 
divine  majesty,  and  speaks  of  the  Holy  Spirit  who'nttered  liis 

voice  by  the  month  of  the  prophets.'  lie  attributes  to  the  sacred 
records  the  same  authority  as  though  the 'living  words  of  God 
were  heard  from  heaven;'  and  yet  unhesitatingly  concedes  slight 
inaccuracies  and  errors,  e.  g.,  in  citations  (Matt.  27:9).  He  also 
acknowledges  the  human  element  in  the  biblical  writers,  espec- 
ially in  their  style.  "Some  prophets  have  a  brilliant  style,  but 
by  such  the  Holy  Spirit  wished  to  show  that  eloquence  was  not 
wanting  to  him,  while  elsewhere  he  made  use  of  a  rough  and  un- 
couth style." 

Calvin  confessed  to  certain  critical  scruples  concerning  the 
canonicity  of  the  Second  Epistle  of .  Peter. 

VI.  Followers  of  the  Great  Reformers. 

Among  the  immediate  followers  of  the  German  and  Swiss  re- 
formers, opinions  were  propounded  implying  somewhat  free  views 
of  inspiration.     Thus — 

1.  Bugenhagen  (fl558)  says  incidentally :  "  Consider  that 
the  evangelists  wrote  each  for  himself  what  they  saw,  and  often- 
times while  they  record  what  occurred,  they  are  heedless  of  the 
order  of  occurrences." 

2.  Bullinger  (f 1575)  writes  in  reference  to  1  Cor.  10 :  S  :  "  Tran- 
scribers easily  fall  into  error  in  stating  numbers;  but  sometimes 
the  writers  were  also  led  by  treacherous  memories  into  the  com- 
mission of  mistakes." 

VII.  Remarks  on  Apparent  Inconsistencies  in  the  At- 
titude of  the  Reformers  toward  the  Scriptures. 

It  is  difficult  to  study  the  writings  of  the  reformers  without 
gaining  the  impression  that  their  attitude  toward  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures was  in  some  sense  anomalous  and  inconsistent.  On  the  one 
hand,  they  declare  them  to  be  of  divine  origin,  the  word  of  God, 
the  sole  source  and  standard  of  all  religious  faith  and  practice, 
and,  apart  from  tradition,  themselves  alone  sufficient  for  salva- 
tion. On  the  other  hand,  some  of  the  reformers  at  least  allow 
themselves  such  freedom  in  the  expression  of  critical  opinion  as 
seems  incompatible  with  belief  in  the  really  supernatural  in- 
spiration of  the  Scriptures,  their  infallible  truth  and  authorita- 
tiveness  in  the  entire  range  of  their  contents.     The  apparent  die- 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY.  43 

crepancies  of  views  and  statements  may  be  explained  somewhat 
as  follows  : 

1.  The  hierarchical  church  for  centuries  exerted  herself  to  the 
utmost  to  suppress  all  independence  and  individuality  of  thought, 

all  close  investigation  of  the  ttubstunn  of  religious  truth,  and  es- 
pecially all  study  of  the  Scriptures.  By  unsparing  use  of  the 
powers  at  her  command — penalties  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  terrors 
temporal  and  eternal — she  in  the  main  succeeded  in  her  aim.  As 
the  human  mind,  however,  must  have  some  field  for  its  activities, 
she  graciously  permitted  a  measure  of  freedom  in  dealing  with 
the  forms  of  faith.  Theologians,  if  first  supremely  loyal  to  the 
church,  and  submissive  to  her  arbitrary  restraints  upon  learning, 
might  take  the  material  which  she  provided  and  work  upon  it. 
They  might  define,  systematize,  demonstrate  and  defend  ancient 
ecclesiastical  dogmas — in  short,  might  justify  to  reason  what  had 
first  been  received  by  faith.  This  produced  the  scholastic  theol- 
ogy which  rose,  culminated,  declined  and  died  a  natural  death 
before  the  time  of  Luther. 

But  if  the  system  itself  had  passed  away,  the  spirit  which  it 
nurtured,  its  methods  and  many  of  its  most  untoward  efforts  re- 
mained. Among  these  none  was  more  disastrous  than  that  of  a 
subtle  and  acute,  hut  superficial  and  cold  questioning  of  the  forms 
of  truth  -form*)  we  say.  for  it  lacked  the  vitality  to  go  below 
the  surface  to  the  deep  reality  of  things. 

When  now  the  Revival  of  Letters  opened  up  the  treasures  of 
classical  antiquity,  the  sources  of  early  Christian  history,  and  the 
Scriptures  themselves  in  their  original  tongues,  then  under  the 
impulse  inspired  by  Humanism,  this  same  critical  spirit,  furnished 
with  a  new  and  worthy  object,  turned  its  attention  to  the  whole 
church-system  'from  turret  to  foundation  stone.'  Not  only  was 
the  real  character  of  the  existing  theology  exposed  to  new,  but 

the  source.-  of  that  theology  in  Scripture  and  ecclesiastical  tra- 
dition were  subjected  to  rigid  scrutiny.  One  idol  of  infallibility 
was  at  once  destroyed,  and  the  sceptical  Humanism  was  not  slow 
to  ask  whether  a  fallible  element  might  not  exist  within  the  other. 
Not  only  did  the  Reformation  movement  itself  in  general  tend  to 
boldness  of  thought  and  freedom  of  inquiry,  but  this  critical 
spirit,  roused  in  reaction  against  the  unquestioning  credulity  of 
'mother-church,'  eager,  self-confident,  but  not  half  instructed, 
knew  not  to  restrain  itself  within  due  bounds;  but,  in  regard  to 


44  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION  \ 

problems  presented  by  the  Holy  Scriptnres,  often  jumped  at  con- 
clusions from  questionable  premises,  especially  if  thereby  a  Mow 
might  be  dealt  at  the  hierarchy  and  the  traditional  system  it  sup- 
ported. 

We  do  not  forget  that  in  Germany  the  new  studies  were  pros- 
cuted  in  a  more  religious  spirit  than  elsewhere,  and  that  litera- 
ture ultimately  became  the  handmaid  of  religion;  neither  do  we 
claim  that  the  spirit  above  described  was  at  all  that  in  which  the 
reformers  consciously  approached  the  Scriptures  ;  but  we  do  claim 
that  this  was  the  atmosphere  in  which  they  grew  up,  and  the 
school  in  which  they  had  their  training.  It  was  not  possible, 
humanly  speaking,  that  they  should  wholly  escape  its  influence 
in  forming  judgment  of  the  Bible  (then  first  made  accessible), 
whether  regard  was  had  to  its  character  and  contents,  or  the  influ- 
ences under  which  it  was  composed. 

2.  On  the  other  hand,  we  must  give  due  weight  to  the  part 
which  mysticism  played,  not  only  in  preparation  for  the  Re- 
formation in  general,  but  especially  in  determining  the  views  of 
the  reformers  with  reference  to  the  written  word  of  God.  [ts  in- 
fluence was  two-fold — helpful  and  harmful.    It  led  its  adherents — 

a.  From  the  abstruse,  barren  speculations  of  the  schools  to  per- 
sonal, spiritual  life. 

1).  In  its  later  stages,  from  tradition  to  Scripture.  As  the 
practical  and  biblical  factors  in  mysticism  were  developed,  the 
circulation  of  the  Bible  and  of  religious  writings  among  the  laity 
was  widely  extended. 

c.  From  dependence  on  outward  works,  and  faith  in  sacraments 
and  ceremonies,  to  attention  to  the  inward  spirit  and  the  motives 
which  govern  conduct,  and  to  direct  approach  to  Christ  and  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

d.  From  sermonizing  in  the  traditional  Latin,  on  the  legends  of 
the  saints,  the  story  of  the  Trojan  war,  and  like  themes,  to  preach- 
ing in  the  vernacular  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by  Christ. 

Xone  the  less  was  mysticism  defective  (as  seen  in  its  operations 
during  the  Middle  Ages)  in  overestimating  the  subjective,  and 
underrating  the  objective  element  in  religion.  It  regarded  what 
Christ  docs  in  u±  rather  than  for  us.  and  overlooked  the  necessity 
and  unique  divinity  of  the  written  word,  while  it  exalted  the  'in- 
ward light,"  the  personal   dealings  of  the  Holy   Ghost  with   be- 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY.  45 

lievers — indeed  practically  deified  humanity.  Mysticism  had,  it 
is  true,  been  purified  in  proportion  to  the  development  <»i'  its  bibli- 
cal factor,  hut  its  tin  measure  at  least  untoward)  influence  upon 
the  reformers,  especially' upon  Luther,  Zwingle  and  others  is  not 
only  traceable  outwardly,  but  is  clearly  proved  by  interna!  evi- 
dence. Example  is  seen  in  the  tendency  of  these  men  to  judge 
of  Holy  Scripture  according  to  a  standard  purely  subjective — 
what  it  had  done  for  them  in  personal  experience,  rather  than  by 
anv  objective  test  whatever.  From  this  point  of  view,  defects 
as  well  as  excellencieswere  freely  predicated  of  that  which  after  all 
their  hearts  embraced  and  treasured  as  God's  most  precious  gift 
to  man. 

Of  course  nothing  here  said  will  he  interpreted  as  hinting  that 
the  reformers  ever  intended  to  question  the  supernatural  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  deny  to  them  supreme  authority  as  the 
court  of  last  appeal  in  matters  of  doctrine,  or  regard  them  as 
other  than  the  infallible  standard  of  perfect  rectitude  of  life.  No 
Christian  teachers  in  any  age,  not  even  the  advocates  of  the  most 
rigid  theory  of  mechanical  inspiration,  ever  so  exalted  the  dig- 
nity and  glory  of  the  Word  as  did  the  great  leaders  of  Christian 
thought  and  life  in  the  sixteenth  century.  It  is  simply  hoped 
that  the  suggestions  given  may  throw  some  light  upon  that  which 
has  often  otherwise  seemed  anomalous  and  unaccountable. 


G.     THE    DOCTRINE   OF    INSPIRATION   DURING 
THE  SEVENTEENTH  CENTURY. 

I.     Lutheran. 

It  was,  partially  at  least,  a  polemic   interest  and  tendency  that 
led  to  tin'  abandonment  of  the  generally  free  view  of  inspiration 

held  by  the  early  reformers,  and  the  development  of  those  ex- 
treme ideas,  especially  in  the  Lutheran  theology  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  which  wholly  suppressed  the  human  element  in 
the  composition  of  the  sacred  records,  and  attributed  to  their  con- 
tents a  mechanical,  literal  divinity.  Luther's  free  view  had  been 
abused  by  the  church  of  Rome  to  the  furtherance  of  her  doctrine 
of  the  insufficiency  and  obscurity  of  tin-  Scriptures,  and  of  the 
authority  and  supremacy  of  ecclesiastical   tradition.     Protestant 


4()  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION: 

orthodoxy,  however,  asserted  itself  with  vigor,  not  only  against 
Romanists,  but  also  against  Arminians,  Socinians  and  Mystics. 
The  materia]  here  is  so  abundant  as  to  forbid  the  presentation  of 
the  views  of  individual  theologians  in  detail.  It  must  be  ar- 
ranged under  a  few  specific  heads : 

1.  The  Nature  of  Inspiration. 
a.  Authorship. 

The  theologians  of  this  school  taught  that  God  is  the  only  real 
author  of  Scripture.  As  Quenstedt  (f  1688)  says:  "  God  alone, 
if  we  wish  to  speak  accurately,  should  be  called  the  author  of  sa- 
cred Scripture."  Of  the  persons  of  the  Trinity,  it  is  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  whom  inspiration  pertains  as  part  of  his  especial  eco- 
nomic functions.  He,  however,  did  not  write  immediately,  but 
made  use  of  the  sacred  penmen.  He  therefore  is  the  primary 
Author,  they  the  secondary  authors.1 

The  relation  of  inspired  men  to  the  inspiring  Spirit  was  con- 
ceived as  purely  passive.  From  the  latter  only  proceeded  the 
impulse  to  write,  and  in  the  process  of  writing  itself,  men  could 
rank  only  as  kthe  pens  or  the  amanuenses  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'8 

Thus  Gerhard  (f  1637)  says :  "  The  efficient,  principal  cause  of 
sacred  Scripture  is  God ;  the  instrumental  causes  were  holy  men. 
They  wrote  not  as  men,  but  as  men  of  God ;  i.  e.,  servants  of 
God  and  special  organs  of  the  Holy  Ghost.1'' 3 

Again :  "  One  may  rightly  call  the  apostles  and  prophets  aman- 
uenses of  God,  hands  of  Christ,  and  notaries  or  secretaries  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  since  they  spoke  or  wrote  nothing  according  to  their 
own  human  will.  All  therefore  was  suggested  and  inspired  with- 
in them." 4 

Quite  in  the  same  strain,  Quenstedt  labors  to  define  the  nature  of 
the  state  of  passivity  in  which  the  sacred  writers  fulfilled  their 
functions,  and  says  that  they  wrote  nothing  'out  of  their  own 
understanding,  but  all  things  under  the  direction  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,' 

The  Lutheran  divines  conceived  it  as  quite  natural  that  in  con- 
sidering the  origin  of  any  particular  book  of  Scripture,  the  sec- 


1  Kahnis,  l/uther.  Dogm.,  279. 
'Baur,  Dogm.-gesch. ,  III  :  61. 
"Gerhard,  Loci.  I,  c.  12,  §  12. 
1  ExpUc.  fiber  Loc.  I,  c.  2,  £  18. 


A.\    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDT.  17 

ondary  author  should  be  wholly  overlooked,  and  attention  exclu- 
sively directed  to  the  primary  Author,  the  divine  Originator. 

I*.  Art  of  [nspiration. 

According  to  the  Bame  theologians,  the  act  of  inspiration  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  included  three  things:  the  impulse  to  write  [i.  6., 
the  mere  mechanical  operation  of  writing,  for  as  Holla/,  (f  1718) 
says:  "The  words  were  inspired  within  the  prophets,  not  to  be 
understood,  but  to  be  written"],  the  suggestion  of  the  matter,  and 
that  of  the  words. 

Thus  Baier  (fl695)  defines  inspiration  as  "an  act  of  that  kind 
by  which  God  Bupernaturally  communicated  to  the  intellect  of 
the  writers,  not  only  the  ideas  of  all  things  which  were  to  he  re- 
corded, but  also  of  the  words  themselves,  and  of  all  things  by 
which  they  should  be  expressed;  and  then  roused  the  will  to  the 
act  of  writing.'"  ' 

Quenstedt  says  again  :  "  All  and  everything  which  is  contained 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  whether  in  the  natural  way  wholly  un- 
known, or  naturally,  indeed,  capable  of  being  known,  but  actually 
unknown  ;  or  yet  again,  not  only  naturally  apprehensible,  but  also 
actually  known,  either  from  personal  experience  or  from  some 
other  source — all  this  was  not  merely  written  by  means  of  infal- 
lible divine  assistance  and  direction,  but  flowed  from  the  special 
suggestion,  inspiration  and  dictation  of  the  Spirit.  For  all  which 
was  to  he  written,  was  suggested  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  sacred 
writers  in  the  act  of  writing,  and  was  dictated  to  their  under- 
standing as  to  a  pe  i,  so  that  it  must  be  set  down  in  writing  with 
these  and  no  other  conditions,  in  this  and  no  other  way." 

It  is  easily  seen  that  this  method  of  conceiving  inspiration  es- 
tablished a  real  Docctism,  through  the  sole  activity  of  the  divine 
Spirit,  and  the  annihilation  of  all  human  spontaneity. 

c.    Revelation  and  Inspiration. 

A.  distinction  was  made  between  k  r,hit'nni  and  hixpiraMon^ 
though  it  was  not  always  kept  clear  and  exact.  Ii  was  taught 
that  the  former  relates  properly  to  the  communication  of  truth 
before  unknown,  and  maybe  made  in  various  ways  and  for  vari- 
ous purposes.      The  latter  relate.-  by  right  only  to  the  act  of  writing, 


('"iiijn  hti/iim,  p.  66 


4:8  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION: 

concerns  either  that  which  was  previously  hidden  or  already  dis- 
closed, and  is  effected  only  through  the  Holy  Ghost.1 

Another  distinction  made  by  theologians  of  more  liberal  views 
will  be  noticed  below. 

2.  The  Extent  of  Inspiration.     (Verbal  Inspiration?) 

a.  Citations  already  made  show  clearly  the  views  of  the  High 
Lutheran  theologians  of  the  seventeenth  century  in  the  matter. 
Everything  pertaining  to  Scripture,  whether  substance  or  form,  was 
alike  the  direct  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Prophecy,  dogma. 
poetry,  history, — all,  without  exception,  were  included. 

Thus  Quenstedt :  4-  The  original  Scripture  is  of  infallible 
truth,  and  free  from  every  error;  or  what  is  the  same  thing,  in 
canonical  Scripture  there  is  no  falsehood,  no  untruth,  not  even 
the  least  error  either  in  facts  or  in  words ;  but  all  things  and 
everything  which  is  related  there,  is  most  true,  whether  those 
things  are  doctrinal,  moral,  historical,  chronological  or  topograph- 
ical, and  no  ignorance,  thoughtlessness  or  forgetfulness,  no  error 
of  memory  can  be,  or  ought  to  be,  imputed  to  the  amanuenses  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  their  records." 

Words  as  well  as  things  were  included.  Oalovius  (fl686)  de- 
clared that,  '  God  inspired  those  things  which  apostles  and  proph- 
ets wrote,  and  not  only  as  to  the  sense  and  meaning,  but  as  to  the 
words  which  were  suggested  and  dictated  to  them,  just  as  they 
are  contained  in  Scripture.' 

Hollaz:  "All  words  and  every  word  which  is  contained  in  the 
sacred  text  was  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  prophets  and  apos- 
tles, and  w^as  dictated  to  a  pen." 

Quenstedt:  "The  words  themselves,  and  all  and  every  ex- 
pression has  the  Holy  Ghost  individually  suggested,  inspired,  and 
dictated  to  the  sacred  writers." 

b.  The  Lutheran  theologians  maintained  that  the  Hebrew  vowel 
points  were  original,  rather  than  the  work  of  the  later  Massoretes, 
and  thus  partook  of  the  inspiration  of  the  text. 

Gerhard  said  that  to  deny  that  the  vowels  and  points  of  the 
Old  Testament  proceeded  from  inspiration  would  compel  one  to 
deny  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  wholly. 


'  Kahiiis,  Luther.  Dogm.,  I:"-27!).     Baur,  Dogm.-gesch.,  III:(iO. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY.  49 

Calovius  supported  the  Baine  theory  by  the  declaration  that 
'not  one  jot  or  tittle  should  in  any  wise  pass  from  the  Law.' 
Similarly  Bpeak  Qnenstedt  and  Ilollaz. 

It  tlius  appears,  to  speak  briefly,  that  the  Lutheran  divines  of 
rhi>  period  regarded  every  word  and  every  letter  of  the  Scrip- 
tures as  the  direct  utteran  ■<  and  mark  of  t/<<-  Holy  Ghost. 

3.   Objections  A  rtswi  red. 

It  could  hardly  escape  the  notice  of  these  Protestant  scholastics 
that  the  views  propounded  and  defended  by  them  encountered 
many  difficulties,  and  were  Liable  to  serious  objections;  but  theo- 
logical ingenuity  and  acuteness  were  then,  as  always,  ready  with 
a  plausible  answer. 

a.  When  it  was  asked  how  on  this  basis  the  evident  differences 
of  Btyle  among  the  sacred  writers  were  to  be  accounted  for,  Cal- 
ovius said  plainly:  kv  The  cause  id'  different  methods  of  expres- 
sion is  that  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  each  one  to  speak  just  as  he 
widies.1 

Qnenstedt  and  Hollaz  point  to  the  manifoldness  of  the  con- 
tents of  the  Scripture  which,  they  say,  demands  a  corresponding 
variety  of  Btyle.  They  also  assume  an  accommodation  on  the 
part  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  individual  peculiarities  of  the  sa- 
cred writers,2  making  him  thereby  the  cleverest  of  imitators. 

A  somewhat  fuller  form  of  reply  to  this  objection  was 
that  the  Holy  (iho>t,  as  the  Lord  of  all  gifts  of  utterance,  could 
Bpeak  as  he  would,  and  vary  his  style  according  to  his  pleasure. 
In  dictating  to  each  sacred  writer,  he  chose  just  such  methods  of 
expression  as  that  person  would  have  chosen  had  he  been  writing 
under  a  voluntary  impulse.  So  carefully  did  the  divine  author 
adapt  himself  to  the  individuality  and  the  grade  of  culture  of 
each  one. 

b.  To  the  charge  of  barbarisms  or  solecisms  in  style,  a  flat  de- 
nial was  returned. 

Hollaz  declares  :  "  The  style  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  is  digni- 
fied, worthy  of  the  divine  Maie-tv.  and  is  disfigured  bv  no  gram- 
matical  fault,  by  no  barbarism  or  BOlecism.  To  maintain  the 
contrary  is  blasphemy." 


1  Syst.  I.,  p.  574 
Kahnie,  Luther.  Dogm.,  281. 

8 


50  THE    DOCTRINE    <>F    INSPIRATION '.  > 

4.  More  Liberal  Views. 

A  few  Lutheran  theologians  had  the  courage  to  array  them- 
selves against  the  doctrinal  exaggerations  of  their  contemporaries, 
though  the  result  was  to  draw  upon  themselves  the  charge  of  un- 
soundness in  the  faith,  and  even  the  accusation  of  positive  heresy. 
Chief  among  them  were  Musaeus  and  Calixtus. 

a.  Musaeus  (f  1681)  ventured  to  express  doubts  whether  inspi- 
ration extended  to  the  words  as  well  as  to  the  matter  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, lie  even  designated  verbal  inspiration  as  an  undecided  and 
improbable  opinion.  But  for  this  hardihood  he  was  violently  op- 
posed by  the  zealous  orthodox  divines,  especially  by  Calovius, 
and  was  compelled  to  retract  his  utterances. 

b.  Calixtus  (f  165(5)  wished  to  distinguish  between  revelation 
or  inspiration  hi  the  strict  sense,  and  mere  divine  assistance. 
To  the  former  he  would  ascribe  only  the  chief  doctrines  of  the 
Scriptures,  viz.,  those  relating  to  human  redemption  and  final  sal- 
vation. For  other  things  which  might  be  learned  from  the 
light  of  nature  or  through  experience,  he  claimed  only  that  divine 
assistance  which  guarded  the  sacred  writers  from  error,  and  en- 
abled them  to  record  that  which  was  k  consonant  with  fact,  true, 
worthy  and  suitable/  Foi*  these  too  free  views  Calixtus  found 
himself  charged  with  heresy.1 

5.  The  Lutheran  Symbols.' 

The  silence  of  the  Lutheran  symbolic  books  respecting  inspira- 
tion has  often  been  remarked.  The  explanation  seems  to  be  that 
the  fact  is  presupposed,  while,  for  various  reasons,  implied  in  what 
has  been  said  above,  no  specific  theory  is  proposed.  Incidental 
expressions  are  found  in  the  Apology,  in  the  Smalcald  Articles, 
and  in  the  Formula  of  Concord,  which  confirm  this  view. 

II.     Reformed. 

The  Reformed  churches  of  the  continent  were  generally  in 
harmony  with  the  Lutheran  in  their  doctrine  of  sacred  Scripture. 
Within  the  former  a  somewhat  animated  controversy  was  carried 
on  respecting  the  inspiration  of  the  vowel-points  of  the  Hebrew 
text.     The  principal   disputants  were  the  two  Imxtorffs,  father 


1  Baur,  Dogm.-gesch.,  111:63. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY.  51 

(f  l »;:;:»)  and  son  (f  let;  1 1.  professors  at  Basle,  on  the  one  side,  and 
Leo.Capellns  on  the  other.  The  former  asserted  both  the  an- 
tiquity and  divine  origin  of  the  Vowel-points,  as  essential  to  any 
true  doctrine  of  inspiration.  The  latter  claimed  them  as  a  later 
growth  upon  the  text,  and  appealed,  in  confirmation  of  his  view, 
to  Both  Jewish  and  Christian  testimonies.  The  orthodox  opinion 
was  finally  confirmed  and  formulated  in  the  Formula  Consensus 
HeJ/oetici  (1675),  which  declares  that 'not  only  the  consonants, 
hut  also  the  vowels  either  the  points  themselves,  or  at  least  the 
meaning  of  the  points — were  inspired  by  God.' 

It  is  undeniable,  however,  that  some  divines  in  the  Reformed 
churches  entertained  less  rigid  views.  This  was  particularly  true 
of  the  French  theologians  of  the  school  of  Saumur,  who  could 
admit,  e.  g.,  without  scruple,  that  the  Xew  Testament  writers 
had  misapprehended  the  meaning  of  those  of  the  Old,  or  had 
fallen  into  errors  of  memory. 

German  Reformed  theologians  also,  like  Junius  Piscator  and 
others,  were  in  like  manner  inclined  to  liberal  views.  In  both  the 
French  and  Swiss  Reformed  churches  the  radical  and  rationalistic 
views  of  Le  Clerc  generally  found  wide  and  welcome  reception. 
Pietet,  e.  g.,  professor  at  Geneva  in  17<>2,  taught  that  inspiration 
in  Scripture  was  limited  to  those  truths  which  men  can  attain  only 
by  the  aid  of  revelation  proper.  The  revelation,  of  course,  never 
extended  to  matter  knowable  by  means  of  the  natural  faculties. 
For  these,  divine  guidance  in  preventing  errors  was  amply  suffi- 
cient. 

III.     Roman  Catholic. 

A  reaction  against  the  exaggerated  orthodoxy  and  extreme  lit- 
erali>in  of  the  Protestant  theologians  was  inevitable,  and  actually 
appeared  in  various  quarters.  We  notice  first  the  Roman  Cath- 
olics. 

1.  The  Canons  of  Trent  incidentally  refer  to  the  Scriptures  as 
a  'dictation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,' but  determine  nothing  otherwise 
concerning  the  theory  of  inspiration.  Ecclesiastical  opinion, 
however,  practically  declared  that  the  Scriptures  and  their  author- 
ity were  dependent  upon  and  subordinate  to  the  authority  of  the 

church. 

2.  Bellarmine  (f  1  * *» li < > >  contended  that  the  original  commission 


52  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION  : 

of  the  apostles  concerned  preaching  and  not  writing;  that  their 
epistles  were  merely  occasional  letters,  and  did  not  fundamentally 
affect  doctrine.1  He  maintained  that  the  sacred  penmen  formed 
the  determination  to  write  from  existing  circumstances,  and  at- 
tributed to  God  such  a  direction  or  assistance  only  as  allowed  the 
preservation  of  their  spontaneity.  He  made  a  broad  distinction 
between  the  prophetic  and  historical  writers,  holding  that  the  kind 
of  aid  rendered  to  each  was  different,  and  adapted  to  their  needs. 
He  says  :  "  God  aided  the  prophets  in  one  way,  and  the  historical 
writers  in  another.  To  the  former  he  revealed  the  future,  and 
assisted  them  so  that  nothing  false  should  mingle  with  what 
they  wrote.  To  the  latter  he  did  not  always  reveal  what  they 
should  write,  but  only  stirred  them  up  to  write  what  they  had 
seen  and  heard  and  remembered.  At  the  same  time  he  helped 
them  not  to  write  anything  false ;  but  this  assistance  did  not  ex- 
clude labor  on  their  part." 2 

All  this  indicates  a  disposition  to  limit  the  province  of  imme- 
diate inspiration  as  much  as  possible. 

3.  Several  of  the  most  learned  papal  doctors  were  inclined  to 
limit  strict  inspiration  to  the  essential  articles  of  faith,3  and  to 
maintain  that  in  other  matters,  e.  g.,  historical  narratives,  the  sa- 
cred writers  were  left  to  themselves,  and  might  sometimes  err. 
Pighius  says  boldly :  "  Matthew  and  John  were  able  to  err  in 
memory,  and  to  falsify.11  The  Jesuits  were  especially  loose  in 
their  views,  and  were  ready  to  concede  the  fallibility  of  prophets  and 
apostles.  For  this,  however,  they  were  condemned  in  1586  by 
the  faculties  of  Louvain  and  Douai. 

Critical  investigations  upon  the  canon  and  the  doctrine  of  in- 
spiration were  actually  instituted  during  this  period,  and  were 
perhaps  mainly  possible  in  the  Catholic  church.  Those  of  Rich- 
ard Simon  were  especially  famous,  and  did  much  to  impair  belief 
in  the  divinity  and  canonical  authority  of  the  books  of  the  Bible, 
especially  of  the  Old  Testament.4  His  opinions  were  certainly 
inconsistent  with  the  acceptance  of  the  theory  of  verbal  and  lit- 
eral inspiration.     He  taught  that  inspiration  should  be  viewed  as 

1  Kahilis,  Luther.  Dogin.,  1:277. 
*De  Verb.  Div.,  1:18. 

3  Haag,  Hist,  dee  Dogm.,  I:  11. 

4  Id.  ib. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDY.  53 

an  act  of  divine  Providence,  by  which  the  sacred  writers  were  in 
general  directed,  and  were  preserved  from  dangerous  errors.  This 
and  nothing  more.  The  learned  Oratorian  remarked  that  'it  was 
for  Protestants  only  to  fear  and  take  offense  at  the  results  of  crit- 
icism. Catholics  could  have  no  such  scruples,  because  their  faith 
did  not  depend  merely  on  the  sacred  text.'1 

IV.     Arminian. 

The  Arminiane  shared  the  Catholic  breadth  and  looseness  of 
view  respecting  our  doctrine,  though  from  another  point  of  view, 
in  the  interest  of  reason  rather  than  of  the  church.  The  t<  inhncij 
was  t<>  limit  the  field  of  inspiration  still  further,  though  in  their 
doctrinal  system  and  public  writings  they  did  not  oppose  the  cur- 
rent ecclesiastical  doctrine.  Looseness  of  view  among  the  Ar- 
minians  was  greatly  promoted  by  intercourse  and  connection  with 
the  Socinians. 

1.  Limborch  (f  1712)  expressed  himself  concerning  the  ques- 
tion only  with  the  greatest  caution,  saying  that  'as  the  apostles, 
under  the  impulse  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  set  about  their  task,  so  also 
in  writing  they  were  so  far  directed  that  they  could  commit  no 
error  either  in  expressing  the  sense  itself,  or  in  recording  the 
words  which  expressed  the  divine  sense.' 2 

Other  theologians  showed  themselves  less  timid. 

2.  Grotius  (f  1645)  would  concede  inspiration,  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  term,  to  the  prophetic  writings  alone,  but  wholly  de- 
nied it  in  the  case  of  the  historical  books,  refusing  to  put  them 
in  the  same  category,  on  the  ground  that  historical  narrative 
needed  no  inspiration.  His  exact  words  are  these:  "Not  all 
books  which  are  in  the  Hebrew  canon  were  dictated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  I  do  not  deny  that  they  were  written  with  pious  intent, 
but  there  was  no  need  that  histories  should  be  dictated  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  It  was  enough  that  the  writer  had  a  clear  recollec- 
tion of  the  things  seen."  3 

He  specifies  the  writings  of  Luke  as  an  example:  "If  Luke 
recorded  only  what  the    Holy  Ghost  dictated  to  him,  why  did  he 

1  Baur,  Dogm.-geteh.,  01:65. 

•'Theol.  Christ.,  Lih.  I,  cap.  IV. 
^Vutum  pro  Pare  hWlesituit. 


54  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION  ', 

make  appeal  to  his  investigations?"  '  Grotius  conceded  the  can- 
onicity  of  Luke's  writings,  but  only  on  the  ground  that  in  the 
opinion  of  the  primitive  chnrch  they  l  are  true,  pious,  and  treat 
of   important  subjects.'2 

3.  Episcopins  (f  1643)  goes  still  further,  and  says  that  the  sa- 
cred writers  might  readily  err,  since  in  historical  and  related 
kinds  of  composition,  for  which  the  unaided  human  faculties 
were  sufficient,  they  were  left  wholly  to  themselves.  To  the  ob- 
jection that  on  this  basis  they  might  err  even  in  essential  things, 
he  replies  that  God  did  not  entrust  matters  of  great  moment  to 
human  weakness,  hut  reserved  them  to  his  own  guidance  and 
control.3 

He  argues  also  against  the  strict  view  of  inspiration,  that  many 
books  of  Scripture  either  contain  nothing  which  others  had  not 
given  in  greater  detail,  or  at  least  are  not  especially  edifying. 
Mention  is  also  made  of  the  fact  that  the  so-called  canonical  writ- 
ings were  not  collected  in  obedience  to  express  divine  command.4 

4.  Le  Clerc  (f  1737),  one  of  the  most  learned  theologians  of  his 
age,  held  that  genuine  divine  revelation  renders  inspiration  need- 
less. The  prophecies  themselves  were  communicated  by  revela- 
tion to  the  prophets,  who  carefully  remembered  them,  but  re- 
corded them,  each  in  his  own  style,  so  that  it  could  not  be  said 
that  they  repeated  the  very  words  which  they  had  heard.5 

The  historical  books  require  no  inspiration,  and  prove  their  ac- 
tual want  of  the  same  by  internal  contradictions.6  Equally  un- 
necessary is  the  supposition  of  inspiration  in  the  case  of  the  doc- 
trinal books  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  as  for  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  '  assistance*  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  amply  sufficient  for 
all  purposes. 

Christ  had  promised  that  the  '  Spirit  of  the  Father '  should 
speak  through  the  disciples  (Matt.  10:20),  but  this  he  interpreted 
to  refer  to  the  spirit  of  holiness  and  steadfastness  with  which  they 
would  endure  persecutions,  and  defend  their  doctrine. 


1  ]'</( >i in  pro  Pace  EccU'siast. 

4  Bnur, Dogm. -gcxch.,  Ill,  65. 

■  Tnstitutiones,  IV  :1,  4. 

4  Id.  IV:  1,  4.     Kahnis,  Lather.  Dogm.,  1:278. 

s  ntiiiu  ntx  <le  Quelques  Theol.  de  Hollunde,  &c.  Haag,  Hist,  des  Dogm.,  1:12. 
'Kahnis,  Luther.  Dogm., 279.     Baur,  Dogm.-gesch.,  111:4,  21. 


AN    OUTLINE    historical    STUDY.  55 

The  promise  that  the  Spirit  should  ' guide tlie  disciples  into  all 
truth,  &c'.,'  (John  1<>:  i:;j  was  explained  as  teaching  that  divine 
aid  would  be  given  to  strengthen  the  memory,  and  make  needed 
explanations  of  truth.  The  apostles  did  not  claim  inspiration  or 
deem  it  necessary  to  the  validity  of  the  doctrinal  contents  of  their 
writings. 

The  views  of  he  Clerc  here  had  much  in  common  with  those 
of  Spinoza. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  Arminian  view  of  inspiration  implied 
a  great  relaxation  of  the  strictness  of  the  general  Protestant 
church  doctrine;  among  other  things,  greatly  widening-  the  field 
of  spontaneity  and  conscious  personal  activity  on  the  part  of  the 
sacred  writers. 

V.  Socinian. 

The  Socinians  did  not  b}T  any  means  deny  the  fact  of  inspira- 
tion, hut  were  otherwise  grossly  inconsistent  in  their  views.  The 
Racovian  Catechism  (preface)  teaches  that  'the  Holy  Ghost  dic- 
tated the  matter  of  Scripture  to  the  apostles,  and  sometimes  the 
very  words,  so  that  they  were  his  mere  instruments.'  Inspiration 
is  conceived  as  the  immediate  and  coercive  operation  of  an  out- 
side  Power  upon  the  sacred  writers,  rather  than  the  inter-pene- 
tration of  their  personality  by  a  higher  Influence,  and  thus  the 
self-conscious  elevation  of  their  human  faculties  to  apprehend  the 
divine  truth  and  will.  Socinianism  here  occupies  common  ground 
with  High  Lutheran  and  Reformed  orthodoxy. 

1.  Faustus  Socinus  himself  confesses  that  the  authors  of  Scrip- 
ture wrote  •  under  the  impulse  of  the  divine  Spirit  and  at  his 
dictation,' '  yet  he  elsewhere  says  that  the  '  natural  abilities  of  the 
New  Testament  writers  were  .abundantly  sufficient  for  the  com- 
munication of  doctrine,'  under  which  hi'  would  include  only  the 
moat  weighty  practical  truths.8  lie  limits  inspiration  to  essential 
things,  and  admits  without  scruple  slight  errors  of  memory,  which 
do  not  in  any  way  affect  the  truth  of  the  sacred  narrative.  So- 
cinns  has  no  hesitation  iii  exalting  the  New  Testament  above  the 
Old,  and  in  declaring  that  'the  reading  of  the  latter,  while  use- 
ful, is  by  no  means  necessary.' 


1  Leetumet  8aerae,  p.  887, 

2  Dc  Auo.  S.  Snip/.,  <•.    |.      ]J:iur.  Doi/m.  -gescfl . ,  [11:66. 


56  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION  : 

To  the  Socinians  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  was  a  ques- 
tion quite  subordinate  in  importance  to  that  of  its  human  and 
historic  credibility,  and  the  divinity  of  written  words  was  of  far  less 
moment  than  that  of  the  general  Christian  faith  and  order.  They 
came  to  feel  less  and  less  concern  about  difficulties  and  apparent 
discrepancies  in  Scripture,  and  were  inclined  to  cut  and  clip  it  ac- 
cording to  their  own  subjective  ideas  of  reason  and  common  sense. 
The  ever  growing  looseness  of  view  among  these  sectaries  was 
coincident  with,  and  based  upon  the  ever  increasing  breadth  of 
province  and  number  of  functions  assigned  to  reason  in  its  rela- 
tion to  Revelation. 

VI.     Mystic. 

The  mystics  of  the  seventeenth  century,  as  those  of  the  Ref- 
ormation era  and  other  periods,  tended  to  exalt  unduly  the 
teaching  of  the  illuminating  Spirit,  and  to  disparage  the  value  of 
the  written  Word.  The  Scriptures  were  treated  very  generally 
as  a  merely  subordinate  revelation,  and  sometimes  as  a  detriment 
to  that  inward  revelation  which  alone  is  true  and  immediate. 
Thus— 

1.  Christian  Hoburg  said  :  "  Scripture  is  an  old,  cold  and  dead 
thing,  which  makes  men  mere  Pharises." 

2.  Arndt :  "  Christ  is  the  living  book  in  whom  we  read,  and 
from  whom  we  should  learn." 

3.  Weigel :  "  Scripture,  as  such,  is  a  dead  letter,  and  an  empty 
word  which  sounds  through  the  air." 

4.  Fox. 

George  Fox  (f  1691),  founder  of  the  sect  of  Quakers,  declared : 
"  It  is  not  the  Scriptures,  but  the  Holy  Spirit  by  which  opinions 
and  religions  are  to  be  tried." 

5.  Barclay. 

1  i(  >bert  Barclay  (f  1690),  the  principal  theologian  of  the  same  de- 
nomination, taught  that  '  Holy  Writ  is  not  the  original  source  of 
knowing  the  truth  ;  it  is  no  adequate  rule  for  doctrines  and  morals. 
*  *  *  It  is  subordinate  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  from  whom  it  de- 
rives its  excellence.' 

Even  when  the  Bible  was  nominally  received  and  confessed  as 


A.N    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    8TUDY.  •>  i 

authoritative,  ideas  were  often  ascribed  to  its  divine  Author,  the 
Holy  Ghost,  whicli  in  reality  were  only  the  products  of  a  morbid 

and  enthusiastic  fancy. 

Spener  (+  1705),  observing  the  reaction  setting  in  among  the 
orthodox  divines  in  favor  of  exaggerated  notions  of  literal  inspi- 
ration, endeavored  to  mediate  between  the  two  parties,  and  on  the 
true  Protestani  principle,  reconcile  the  teaching  of  the  inward 
Spirit  with  the  authority  of  the  written  Word.  1 1  is  effort  was 
to  enhance  the  value  placed  upon  the  Bible  both  by  the  people 
and  the  theologians.1 

In  his  personal  views  he  confesses,  with  the  mystics,  that  the 
mere  letter  of  Scripture  is  powerless  and  dead  ;  hut  against  them 
he  declares  that,  "our  feelings  are  not  the  norm  of  truth,  but  di- 
vine truth  is  the  norm  of  our  feelings.  The  rule  of  truth  exists 
in  the  divine  word,  apart  from  ourselves.'9 

With  equal  earnestness  did  lie  oppose  the  dead  mechanism  of 
church  orthodoxy,  and  maintain  the  independence  of  the  Scrip- 
ture writers.  He  says:  "  AjBsuredly  the  things  the  apostles  wrote, 
they  understood,  and  did  not  produce  sounds  like  parrots.  But 
the  understanding  demands  its  own  images  or  ideas  which  it 
forms,  drawing  them  either  from  within  or  from  some  other 
source. 

VII.     Opinion  in  England. 

Public  opinion  was  not  so  generally  or  profoundly  Stirred  upon 
the  question  of  inspiration  either  among  the  churchmen  or  dis- 
senters of  England,  as  among  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
churches  of  the  Continent.  Still  the  subject  was  not  without  in- 
terest, and  some  opinions  were  expressed  which  are  worthy  of 
record. 

I.   .  1  rchbishop  TiHotson. 

This  prelate  (f  h'.'.i-f)  hesitated  to  declare  himself  frankly  re- 
specting the  extent  of  inspiration.  He  is  not  sure  whether  the 
divine   superintendence    merely   secured    the    Scripture    writers 


Sagenbach,  Hist.  Doet.,  II  :  246. 
'Beck,  Dogm.-geach.,  120. 
:  ComU.  Theol.,  t:45. 


58  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    I.\>l'l  K  ATKi.N  : 

against  error  in  the  delivery  or  doctrine  and  narration  of  fact, 
while  each  was  left  to  his  own  stytle  and  manner  of  expression; 
or,  whether  everything  written  was  Immediately  dictated,  words 
and  phrases  as  well  as  sense,  so  that  human  authors  were  merely 
the  penmen  or  instruments  of  the  Spirit.  Be  is  only  clear  that 
the  measure  of  inspiration  was  in  every  case  sufficient  to  secure 
the  end  of  Scripture,  viz.,  to  inform  the  world  of  the  mind  and 
will  of  God.1 

lie  is  inclined  to  think  that  Moses  wrote  the  account  of  that 
in  which  lie  was  personally  concerned  without  immediate  revela- 
tion ;  that  Solomon,  by  natural  and  acquired  wisdom,  might  utter 
his  sententious  Proverbs;  that  the  evangelists  tnight  record  what 
they  saw  and  heard,  or  learned  from  others;  that  Paul  might 
make  certain  local  allusions  contained  in  his  epistles  without  im- 
mediate dictation.  He  finds  probable  argument  fortius  view,  e. 
g.,  in  the  verbal  disagreements  combined  with  the  substantial  har- 
mony of  the  Evangelists,  in  the  various  readings  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  &c.a  He  finally,  though  with  apparent  hesita- 
tion, concludes  that  the  Spirit  of  God  did  reveal  to  the  penmen 
of  the  Scriptures  what  was  necessary  to  be  revealed  ;  and  as  to 
all  other  things,  that  he  did  secure  them  from  any  material  error 
or  mistake  in  what  they  have  delivered. 

Not  very  profound  or  venturesome  utterances  for  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  and  Primate  of  all  England. 

2.   Burnet. 

Burnet,  bishop  of  Salisbury  (f  1715),  argues  that  inspiration 
left  the  sacred  writers  to  the  use  of  their  own  faculties,  and  to 
their  previous  customs  and  habits.  The  object  of  God  was  to 
give  such  representations  of  matters  of  fact  as  might  work  upon 
and  affect  belief.  The  order  of  time  and  strict  words,  not  affect- 
ing this  t'\u\,  might  vary  according  to  occasion. 

As  to  the  doctrinal  part,  i.  e.,  the  rules  of  life  given,  or  the  propo- 
sitions laid  down,  all  must  acquiesce  in  them  as  the  voice  of  God. 
The  explanations  or  arguments  supporting  these  may  be  of  vari- 
ous value,  and   are  to   be  estimated    according  to   their   intrinsic 


1  Works,  vol.  IX: •„>;;:; 

-Id..  284. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDY.  59 

character.  Bnrnet  says,  expressly:  "When  the  divine  writers 
argneupon  any  point,  we  are  always  bound  to  believe  tne conclu- 
sions that  their  reasonings  end  in.  as  parts  of  divine  revelation  ; 
hut  we  are  not  bound  to  be  able  to  make  out,  or  even  to  assent  to 
all  the  premises  made  use  of  by  them  in  their  whole  extent;  un- 
less it  appears  plainly  that  they  affirm  the  premises  as  expressly 
as  they  do  the  conclusions  proved  by  them."1 

3.  Baxter. 

Richard  Baxter  (f  1691  >,  among  the  dissenting  divines  of  Eng- 
land in  the  seventeenth  century,  i>  noteworthy  for  his  somewhat 
latitndiuariau  position  on  the  question  before  us.  He  would  limit 
inspiration  to  the  subject-matter  of  Scripture.  He  says:  "The 
Scripture  is  like  a  man's  body,  where  some  parts  are  hut  for  the 
preservation  of  the  rest,  and  may  he  maimed  without  death.  The 
sense  i>  the  soul  of  Scripture,  and  the  letters  hut  the  boViy  or  ve- 
hicle. The  doctrine  of  the  Creed,  Lord's  Prayer,  and  Decalogue 
is  the  vital  part,  and  Christianity  itself.  The  Old  Testament  let- 
ter (written  as  we  have  it  about  Ezra's  time)  is  that  vehicle,  which 

is  as  imperfect  a>  the  Revelation  of  these  times  was.  But  as 
after  Christ's  incarnation  and  ascension,  the  Spirit  was  more 
abundantly  given,  and  the  Revelation  more  pe/fect  and  sealed, 
so  the  doctrine  is  more  full,  and  flic  vehicle  or  body,  that  is,  are 
less  imperfect  and  more  sure  to  as;  so  that  he  that  doubteth  of 
the  truth  of  some  words  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  of  some  cir- 
cumstances in  the  New.  hath  no  reason  to  doubt  therefore  of  the 
Christian  religion,  of  which  these  doctrines  are  hut  the  vehicle 
or  body,  sufficient  to  ascertain  of  the  truth  of  the  History  and 
I  >octrine."a 

4.  John  Owen. 

Very  diiferenl  from  the  attitude  of  Baxter  was  that  occupied 
by  the  Puritan  divine,  John  Owep  (f  1683),  who  was  quite  in  ac- 
cord upon  this  subject  with  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  scholas- 
tics of  the  <  outinent.  and  may  he  taken  a^  an  example  of  the  ex- 
tremely rigid  views  prevalent  among  most  of  the  contemporary 


1  Burnel  on  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  112. 
■'  7'A<  Cateehieing  oj  Families,  1688,  p.  :^> 


60  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION  I 

Puritans  in  England.  lie  treats  inspiration  from  the  standpoint 
of  prophecy,  and  makes  it,  on  the  divine  side,  to  be  'an  act  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  communicating  his  mind  to  the  prophets.'1 
From  this  point  of  view  three  things  enter  into  it: 

a.  The  inspiration  of  the  minds  of  holy  men  with  the  knowl- 
edge and  apprehension  of  the  things  communicated  to  them. 

b.  The  suggestion  of  words  to  express  what  their  minds  con- 
ceived. 

c.  The  guidance  of  their  hands  in  setting  down  the  words  sug- 
gested. 

If  either  of  these  requisites  were  wanting,  the  Scriptures  could 
not  be  absolutely  and  every  way  divine  and  infallible.2 

As  to  the  extent  of  inspiration,  he  observes  :  "  It  is  not  enough 
to  satisfy  us  that  the  doctrines  mentioned  are  preserved  entire : 
every  tittle  and  iota  of  the  word  of  God  must  come  under  our 
consideration  as  being  as  such  from  God." 

Again  :  "  The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  were 
immediately  and  entirely  given  out  by  God  himself,  his  mind 
being  in  them  represented  to  us  without  the  least  intervenieney 
of  such  mediums  and  ways  as  were  capable  of  giving  change  or 
alteration  of  the  least  letter  or  syllable." 

Careful  study  shows  that  he  intended  to  reject,  and  perhaps 
with  equal  emphasis,  two  opposite  errors  :  one,  that  the  matter 
only  of  the  Holy  Scripture  was  divinely  communicated,  while 
the  verbal  expression  was  left  to  the  natural  faculties ;  and  the 
other,  that  the  minds  of  the  sacred  penmen  were  under  such  co- 
ercive influence  from  above  that  they  became  mere  machines. 
All  used  their  own  intellects  and  powers,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
suggested  such  words  as  were  familiar  to  each,  but  yet  in  such 
way  that  the  words  fixed  upon  were  from  him  as  directly  and  cer- 
tainlv  as  if  they  had  been  spoken  to  them  by  an  audible   voice."3 


Works,  ('alters  edition.  111:131. 
Id..  144. 
Id..  145. 


A.N    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDY.  6] 

H.     THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION    DURING 
THE   EIGHTEENTH    CENTURY. 

The  ultra-orthodox  doctrine  of  inspiration  affirmed  by  the  Lu- 
theran and  Reformed  scholastics  of  the  seventeenth  century  was 
during  the  succeeding  one  greatly  modified  and  limited, — in  many 
quarters,  wholly  abrogated.  Some  powerful  specific  agencies 
were  at  work  to  produce  these  radical  changes.  A.mong  them 
may  be  mentioned  on  the  one  Bide,  the  influence  of  Spinoza  and 
his  philosophic  system,  as  well  as  that  of  English  Deism  ;  on  the 
other,  the  rise  of  Pietism.  Each  contributed  in  its  own  way 
and  measure.  But  more  than  this:  the  old  theories  seemed  to 
come  in  conflict  with  almost  every  aspect  of  the  progressive 
thought  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  were  outlawed  by  reason 
of  the  difficulties  and  contradictions  in  which  they  involved  their 
advocates,  as  well  as  by  the  positive  advance  in  criticism,  exe- 
gesis and  philosophy.  The  real  attack  on  the  strict  Lutheran 
doctrine  began  about  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
and  took  two  main  directions,  a  historic  and  a  philosophic.  The 
former  concerned  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  in  general,  and  its 
practical  application  to  specific  hooks  and  passages;  the  latter  ex- 
tended to  revelation  as  well  as  inspiration,  and  partook  rather  of 
a  philosophic  and  dogmatic  character.1  The  one  kind  was  de- 
termined, as  just  indicated,  by  the  progress  both  of  criticism  and 
interpretation,  as  well  as  by  that  of  historical  theology  in  general. 
Riost  important  here  was  Sender,  who  really  inaugurated  the  rev- 
olutionary epoch  in  German  theology.2 

Attacks  of  the  second  sort  were  probably  at  least  an  indirect 
result  of  the  influence  of  the  writings  of  Spinoza,  while  they 
were  greatly  furthered  by  the  aid  of  the  Kantian  philosophy  and 
its  application  to  theology.8  Each  in  its  way  contributed  power- 
fully not  only  to  the  overthrow  of  old  ideas,  but  to  the  develop- 
ment of  a  freer  philosophical  interpretation  of  the  idea  and  theory 
of  inspiration. 

As  the  result  of  the  coworking  of  all  influences  there  followed 
a  notable  reconstruction  id'  the  doctrine.      Henceforward  inspira- 


1  Mi'insciicr.  />»:/ in.  !/<. •«■/,.  (Neudecker),  [1:2,  880. 

*Rudelbach,  Zettieh.  fur  die  Geaammt.  Luther,  Theol.,  1840,  Zumt.  Quart.,  58. 

Miiii-ilicr.  '//  si//>. 


t!l>  THE    DOCTEINE    OF    INSINUATION  \ 

tion,  even  among  divines  of  reputed  orthodoxy,  was  conceived  not  in 
an  isolated  way,  but  as  standing  in  organic  union  with  the  col- 
lective mental  and  spiritual  life  of  the  sacred  writers.  Ir  was  re- 
ferred chiefly  to  the  kernel  of  saving  truth,  and  to  other  contents 
of  Scripture  only  according  to  the  measure  of  their  connection 
with  this.1  Distinctions  of  degree  in  inspiration  were  also  con- 
ceded, German  theologians  in  general  no  longer  maintaining  the 
universal  and  absolute  infallibility  of  all  details  of  the  sacred 
records. 

Accurate  grouping  of  the  various  views  that  now  demand  our 
notice  is  by  no  means  an  easy  task.  We  may,  however,  begin 
with — 

1.  The  Rationalistic. 

1-   I'M'. 

Pfaff  (f  17C>0)  was  among  the  earliest  Lutheran  theologians 
who,  in  his  treatment  of  the  doctrine,  betrayed  a  clear  tendency 
to  a  radical  departure  from  rigid  and  traditional  views.  He  dis- 
tinguished different  degrees  in  inspiration. 

a.  Immediate  revelation,  made  to  the  apostles  and  other  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  concerning  matters  either  wholly  or  in 
part  unknown  before. 

b.  Immediate  direction,  in  the  setting  forth  of  parts  which 
were  known  to  them  before,  as  also  in  the  development  of  doc- 
trine. 

c.  Di/vine  /><  rm  ission  in  presenting  those  things  which  required 
neither  'revelation'  nor  'immediate  guidance.* 

This  last  and  lowest  degree  was  consistent  with  purely  hu- 
man ideas. 

2.  ToUner. 

Tollner  published  in  1772  a  treatise  entitled  '  Die  gottliche 
Eingebung  der  heiligen  Schrift,'  which  constitutes  one  of  the 
most  important  works  for  the  history  of  inspiration  during  this 
period,  lie  sought  to  show  that  the  doctrine  in  question  is  not 
so  vital  to  Christianity  as  commonly  supposed.  Revealed  religion 
does  not  stand  or  fall  with  the  divine  inspiration  of  a  book,  and 


1  Lechler,  Dogm.-gesch. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDY.  *'>'■'> 

excessive  regard  for  the  mere  letter  of  Scripture  most  involve  one 
in  continual  doubt  and  perplexity,  through  the  progress  of  criti- 
cism and  genera]  science.1  Saving  proved,  as  he  thinks,  by  his- 
toric evidence  thai  the  freer  view  of  inspiration  has  been  the  con- 
trolling one  in  every  age,  Tollner  proceeds  to  the  execution  of  hie 
main  purpose,  adopting  therfor  and  making  rigorous  use  of  the 
analytic  method.  The  chief  peculiarities  of  his  view  may  l>c  thus 
briefly  Bummed  up  : 

a.  There  are  ti\''  degrees  of  inspiration,  and  the  differentiating 
element  in  each  is  the  measure  of  the  supernatural  divine  coop- 
eration. These  degrees  he  analyses  and  distinguishes  with  philo- 
sophical precision,  though  without  attempting  tb  decide  what 
special  degree  is  found  in  a  given  passage  of  Scripture. 

1).  The  divine  authority  of  the  Bible  is  ensured  even  without 
inspiration. 

c.  Inspiration  is  a  'mere  synergism,'  or  an  assistance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  through  which  the  sacred  writers  were  preserved 
from  error,  and  were  enabled  to  compose  their  writings  in  a  man- 
ner consonant  with  the  end  in  view. 

d.  A  broad  distinction  is  to  he  made  between  the  Scriptures 
and  tin-  word  of  God. 

It  need  scarcely  be  said  that  the  general  results  of  TnllncrV 
investigatio  s  in  this  department  were  wholly  favorable  to  nega- 

tiv    criticism. 

'■'>.     S,  uilrr. 

Sender  (f  1791),  founder  of  the  School  of  so-called  'histor- 
ical biblical  criticism,'  took  for  his  point  of  departure,  morality, 
or  general  utility  as  constituting  the  essential  character  of  the 
divine,  since  it  facilitates  spiritual  goodness  in  mankind.2  Moral 
improvement,  therefore,  is  the  essence  of  all  religion.  The  Spirit 
of  Christ  is  aothing  else  than  the  living  apprehension  and  exhi- 
bition of  moral  truth  in  the  fulness  of  its  divine  extent, ::  and  in- 
spiration  is  a    spiritual  -  divine   power  of  truth,  or  of  the  ever 


1  Baur,  / >"!/ m. -,</''• xffi..  Ill:  L28 

■Rudelbach,  Zetoch.  ,{■.-..  1840,  Zweit.  Quart.,  51 

;:  \'"/i  Frii  r  I  'nil  rtuchung  J**  Cation .   I  : :!'.'. 


64  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    INSPIRATION  I 

forth-going  word  of  God,  which  lie,  as  it  were,  himself  speaks 
within  a  man,  and  *  ":<"  *  in  such  a  manner  that  he  becomes 
sure  that  it  is  the  instruction  of  God.M 

As  matter  of  fact,  Sender  reduced  inspiration  from  a  human- 
subjective  point  of  view  to  a  mere  devout  frame  of  mind,  and 
the  '  testimonium  Spiritus  Sancti '  to  the  advantage  to  be  derived 
from  the  Scriptures  for  moral  improvement  and  edification. 

His  practical  application  of  these  theories  to  the  sacred  canon 
and  to  theology  in  general  needs  no  exposition  here. 

4.  Michaelis. 

Michaelis  (f  1791)  wholly  denied  the  orthodox  interpreta- 
tion of  the  '  testimonium  Spiritus  Sancti'  and  the  'tides  divina" 
in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  inspiration,  conceding  only 
that  a  'good  sound  human  understanding  would  find  in  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves  the  proof  of  their  divinity.'  lie  frankly  con- 
fessed in  his  'Dogmatik'  that,  'firmly  as  he  was  convinced  of  the 
truth  of  revelation,  he  had  never  in  his  life  experienced  the  wit- 
ness of  the  Holy  Ghost,  nor  had  he  found  in  the  entire  Bible  one 
word  concerning  it.' 

5.  (xriesbach. 

Griesbach  (f  1812)  distinguished  mediate  natural  inspiration, 
general  religious  enthusiasm,  and  providential  guidance.  The 
'witness  of  the  Spirit'  in  reference  to  the  Scriptures  was  of  less 
importance  in  his  eyes  than  their  usefulness  for  the  moral  im- 
provement of  man;  ' authority r'  gave  place  to  adaptedness  to  t/<> 
end  proposed.2  Some  idea  of  his  doctrinal  attitude  may  be  gained 
from  the  following  passage:  "The  impartation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  qualified  the  disciples  for  the 
apostolic  calling,  and  therefore  for  the  composition  of  the  writings 
necessarily  connected  with  it.  For  extraordinary  occasions  there 
was  bestowed  a  new,  wonderful  enduement  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
but  in  addition,  the  natural  mental  activities  of  the  sacred  writers 
were  preserved  by  Providence  from  serious  error.  How  far  the 
individual  constituent  parts  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  have  arisen 
from  the  one  and  the  other  source,  cannot  be  distinguished,  and 


1  I<1.,  46. 

1  Beck,  Dogm.-geseh.,  121. 


AX    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDY.  65 

is  not  distinguished  by  the  apostles  themselves.  Therefore  the 
biblical  idea  of  inspiration  is  tin-  theocratic  'in-spiriting' of  the 
men,  not  of  the  writings,  for  they  were  not '  in-spirited '  to  write. 

0.  //-  nh . 

Ilenke  it-  I  sol)')  gave  full  and  free  expression  to  the  rational- 
istic view,  when  lie  Baid  that  the  sacred  writers  were  moved  to 
literary  composition,  and  actually  entered  upon  the  work,  from 
the  desire  of  being  serviceable  to  others,  and  from  the  opportunity 
thus  presented  ;  that  they  made  choice  of  material  according  to 
the  peculiar  necessities  of  time  and  place,  drew  the  facts  them- 
selves from  the  abundant  resources  of  their  own  knowledge,  the 
arrangement  and  embellishment  of  the  same  from  their  individual 
natural  endowments,  and  the  words  from  the  habit  and  manner  of 
speaking  customary  to  each  one.1 

Every  element  which  enters  into  the  composition  of  the  Scrip- 
tures is  here  referred  to  merely  natural  motives  and  causes.2 

7.     1 1  rid  il'. 

Eerder  (f  L803)  is  most  conveniently  and  correctly  mentioned 
here,  both  as  a  rationalist  (though  not  of  the  school  of  Sender), 
and  as  a  forerunner  of  Schleiermacher. 

lie  sought  to  do  away  with  what  he  viewed  as  the  old  material- 
istic idea  of  an  inspired  writing.  As  humanity,  in  the  genuine 
sense,  was  to  him  the  highest  thing,  so,  said  he,  in  order  to  hu- 
manize the  Bible,  which  is  the  most  human  of  all  books,  it  must 
be  read  in  a  thoroughly  human  way.  Inspiration,  according  to 
the  orthodox  interpretation,  he  characterizes  as  nonsense.  A 
low  habit  of  thinking  in  the  dark  ages  liked  to  conceive  of 
one  who  was  moved  by  the  divine  Spirit,  as  an  organ  pipe  through 
which  the  wind  blows. — an  empty  machine  from  which  all 
thoughts  of  its  own  are  far  removed.  Cabbalistic  ideas  first  gave 
birth  to  the  conception  of  a  sacred  writing  as  a  connected  whole. 
The.-r  ideas  were  then  propagated  by  the  Alexandrian  philosophy, 
and  entered  into  Christianity.     In  the  conflict  with  heretics,  an 

appeal  was  made  to  an  in-sjurnl    Word,  and  with   the  increase  of 

ignorance,  the  Lordship  of  wtrspi/ration  was  founded,  upon  which 
finally  Scholasticism  set   it  seal.     The  word  of  God  is  nothing 


1  Liiiiiim.,  Inxtit.  I'iiiix  Christ.,  p.  ■'•'■). 
Hiiar,  Dniji/i.-ycsch.,  £11:427. 

10 


66  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION: 

else  than  light — insight;  among  the  Hebrews  spirit  and  word 
were  one.  The  Spirit  which  Christ  promised  to  his  followers 
was  only  his  doctrine,  his  memory,  his  illuminated  likeness.1 

II.  More  Evangelical. 

1.  Stajrfcr. 

This  divine,  theological  professor  at  Berne  (f  1775)  says  :  "  We 
must  distinguish  between  those  parts  of  the  sacred  Scriptures 
which  were  written  by  the  immediate  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  those  which  have  been  consigned  to  writing  by  his 
direction  only.  To  the  former  class  belong  the  peculiar  discov- 
eries of  revelation  respecting  the  way  of  salvation,  predictions,  etc. 
To  the  latter  class  belong  truths  already  known  from  natural  re- 
ligion." 

He  adds,  however  :  "  Nor  was  any  error  permitted  to  creep  in 
with  regard  even  to  the  minutest  fact  or  circumstance.  All  alike 
comes  to  us  through  inspiration,  and  is  of  equal  precision,  whether 
it  be  by  revelation,  observation,  or  reasoning;  if  we  follow  the 
latter,  there  can  be  no  error  in  our  conclusions,  except  by  not 
properly  applying  the  laws  of  interpretation." 

III.  Swedenborg. 

Swedenborg's  (f  1772)  doctrine  of  inspiration  is  unique  and  ob- 
scure. An  adequate  conception  of  it  is  to  be  gained  only  from 
the  study  of  his  writings,  or  at  least  from  a  detailed  exposition  of 
his  views  by  one  of  his  initiated  disciples.  The  reader  is  re- 
ferred, among  other  sources  of  information,  to  an  article  by  Rev. 
Chauncey  Giles,  in  the  North  American  Review,  October,  1878, 
pp.  314—319.  Some  of  the  following  statements  are  taken  from 
that  paper. 

With  Swedenborg,  the  Scriptures  and  the  word  of  God  are 
identical,  and  are  divine  truth  itself.  "  If  the  Word  were  not 
true,"  he  says,  "  we  could  know  nothing  of  God,  of  heaven  or  of 
hell,  of  life  after  death,  and  still  less  of  the  Lord."  He  held 
that  man  has  no  innate  knowledge,  but  must  learn  everything 
he  knows  in  every  sphere.  Revelation,  therefore,  is  absolutely 
indispensable  to  teach  him  of  beings  and  worlds  that  may  exist 
beyond  the  realm  of  the  senses. 


1  You,  Geistdes  Christ.,  Werke  zur  Theol,  XII:  235-6.     Baur,  111:441. 


AN    OUTLINE    BOSTOBIGAL    BTUDT.  67 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  Swedenborg  applies  the  term  'word  of 
God,' not  to  our  canonical  books,  but  to  another  Scripture  ante- 
dating and  superior  to  ours.  He  calls  it  the  'Scripture  of  an- 
gels.' He  advances  also  to  another  identification.  As  the  Scrip- 
ture is  the  '  word  of  God,'  so  the  'word  of  God'  is  the  Lord 
himself.  As  God  descended  in  order  to  become  veritable  man  in 
the  Sou,  so  also  does  the  Word  —the  divine  proceeding  from  the 
Lunl — that  is,  the  Lord  himself,  descend  through  three  stages  to 
man.     These  stages  are  the  celestial,  the  spiritual,  and  the  natural. 

In  regard  to  those  of  the  commonly  received  Scriptures  which 
he  admitted  as  canonical,  he  seems  to  have  taught  degrees  of  in- 
spiration, for  he  distinguished  the  immediate  utterances  of  God 
himself  from  those  made  by  angels  in  his  behalf.  "The  books 
spoken  by  the  Lord,  by  the  mouths  of  the  prophets,  were  the 
five  books  of  Moses,  Joshua,  Judges,  First  and  Second  Samuel, 
First  and  Second  Kings,  the  Psalms,  and  all  the  Prophets  from 
Isaiah  to  Malachi,  the  four  Gospels  and  the  Revelation."'  "The 
other  books  of  the  so-called  canon  are  good  and  useful,  and  pos- 
sese  about  the  same  kind  and  amount  of  inspiration  generally  ac- 
corded to  the  whole  Bible,  but  they  do  not  contain  a  connected 
spiritual  meaning,  and  they  are  not  therefore  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  and  they  do  not  claim  to  be."1 

All  the  sacred  books  alike  stand  in  imperative  need  of  a  new 
revelation — that  of  Swedenborg — to  render  them  intelligible. 

Inspiration  itself  is  the  divine  choice  and  use  of  natural  forms 
for  the  expression  of  spiritual  and  eternal  truth.  Under  the  su- 
pernatural influence,  speech  and  record  alike  become  the  faithful 
reflection  of  the  Higher  and  Supreme  Will. 

With  reference  to  the  extent. oi  inspiration,  Swedenborg  would 
seem  to  have  accepted  the  verbal  theory.  At  all  events,  he  held 
single  words  of  Scripture  to  he  of  so  great  importance  as  to  fear, 
from  the  loss  of  the  smallest  of  them,  great  peril  to  the  whole  con- 
nection of  a  passage.  He  appeals  to  the  counting  of  the  letters 
by  the  Massoretee  as  an  arrangement  of  divine  Providence  for 
the  preservation  of  the  Scriptures  from  injury.8 

The  same  verbal  theory  is  suggested  by  his  view  that  absolutely 
everything  in  Scripture  is  significant.     Even  the  numbers  and 


1  .V  .1.  Review,  October,  1*78,  316. 
•  Baur,  Dogm.  fetch.,  II T:  1  ij. 


68  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSI'IKATK  »X  : 

the  proper  names  have  a  spiritual  meaning.  Oftentimes  the 
Scripture  authors  understood  their  own  utterances  only  in  their 
natural  import,  but  this  is  of  no  importance.  "  The  essential 
thing  is  that  every  word  spoken  should  be  the  natural  exponent 
of  a  divine  truth,  and  that  the  Lord  always  provided  for.  There 
is  not  a  word  in  the  wildest  vision  of  the  prophets,  in  the  driest 
genealogy,  in  the  most  natural  precept,  which  does  not  embody 
a  divine  truth."  ' 

IV.     Opinion  in  England. 

The  indirect  effect  of  Spinoza's  thought,  and  the  more  direct 
influence  of  English  divines  above  referred  to,  were  seen  in  the 
loose  ideas  concerning  inspiration  prevalent  both  among  church- 
men and  dissenters  of  England  during  the  last  century.  The 
tendency  was  now,  as  it  had  been  to  some  extent  before,  to  limit 
the  supernatural  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  sacred 
writers  to  the  religious  element  of  the  communications,  and  ex- 
clude it  from  all  extraneous  to  that  province.  Among  the  opin- 
ions which  diverged  more  or  less  from  the  standards  of  strict  or- 
thodoxy were  those  of — 

1.    Whitby. 

The  views  of  Whitby  (f  1726)  upon  inspiration  may  be  ar- 
ranged under  two  heads : 

a.  Nature. 

As  to  its  nature,  it  consists  in  such  an  impression  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  on  the  brain  of  a  Scripture  writer  as  to  impart  a  clear  idea 
of  that  which  he  wishes  to  communicate.  Certainty  is  always 
given  that  the  message  is  from  God.2 

b.  Extent. 

Two  kinds  or  degrees  of  inspiration  are  distinguished  : 
That  of  suggestion,  involving  the  communication  of  truth  before 
unknown.    This  was  exemplified  primarily  in  the  case  of  the  proph- 
ets, though  the  apostles  also,  especially  John,  in  writing  the  Apoc- 
alypse, gave  evidence  of  the  working  of  the  same  power. 

That  of  direction.    This  implied  such  a  divine  superintendence 


N.  A.  Review,  October,  1878,  p.  318. 
■Preface  to  Comm.  on  N.  T.     Dissert,  on  Divine  Authority  of  Scripture. 


AN    OUTLINE    HI8TOEIOAL    STUDY.  69 

afl  secured  the  sacred  writers  against  all  error,  but  presupposed 
that  the  general  substance  of  the  message  was  previously  known 
by  oatural  means  —  reason  or  education,  or  antecedent  revelation. 

Whitby  would  nowhere  admit  slips  of  memory  «>n  the  part  of 
tlic  apostles,  nor  would  he  concede  that  they  determined  practi- 
cal questions  on  grounds  of  human  expediency,  apart  from  the 
direction  of  the  I  [oly  Spirit. 

He  contended  for  such  a  kind  and  degree  of  inspiration  as  se- 
cured perfect  certainty  as  to  the  truth  written,  but  not  for  the 
theory  of   verbal,  mechanical  dictation. 

2.  Sa/mui  I  ( ' In /■/.■' . 

Dr.  Clarke  (f  1729)  insisted  upon  a  eareful  observance  of  the 
distinction  between  prophetic  writings  on  the  one  hand,  and  his- 
torical and  moral  compositions  on  the  other.  lie  says  that  k  in 
the  prophetic  books,  where  the  subject-matter  was  entirely  new 
to  the  prophet  himself,  and  very  often  perhaps  not  understood 
by  him.  it  is  very  plain  that  inspiration  means  that  the  whole  was 
dictated  to  the  inspired  writers,  either  in  a  vision,  or  by  an  angel, 
oi-  otherwise,  according  as  it  pleased  God  to  reveal  himself  at 
divers  times  and  in  diverse  manners.  But  in  the  historical  and 
moral  books  of  Scripture,  wherein  the  writers  had  themselves 
perfect  knowledge  of  the  facts  recorded  and  of  the  doctrine 
taught,  it  was  abundantly  sufficient  that  they  had  such  assistance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  guiding  them  into  all  truth,  as  enabled  them 
to  express  their  own  thoughts  in  their  own  words,  with  an  effec- 
tual security  that  they  should  not  err  in  the  manner  of  delivering 
the  doctrine  which  they  were  commanded  to  teach.1 

3.  Cala/my. 

Ed.  ( ialamy  (f  1  732)  held  that  the  divine  assistance  given  to  the 
.-acrid  writers  extended  both  to  the  formation  of  their  conceptions 
and  the  framing  of  their  writings;  and  that  the  assistance  was  of 
such  Bort  as  to  prevent  the  insertion  of  anything  false,  or  the  omis- 
sion of  any  necessary  truth.  The  Spirit  immediately  suggested 
and  dictated  such  things  as  were  matter-  of  pure  revelation,  and 
illuminated  their  minds  .in  the  several  doctrinal  and  practical 
truths  they  delivered  in  writing. 


1  Works,  vol.  II:  86. 


70  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION  : 

The  Holy  Ghost  used  the  sacred  penmen  as  reasonable  crea- 
tures, and  made  use  of  their  judgments,  memories  and  affections, 
but  they  acted  under  his  guidance  in  the  whole  of  their  work. 

Natural  difference  of  style  and  language,  the  Spirit  did  not  ob- 
literate but  permitted  in  the  writings  drawn  up  under  his  con- 
duct, save  in  some  places  where  he  thought  fit  to  interfere  in 
some  particular  strains  of  majesty  and  authority. 

Inspiration  did  not  imply  immediate  revelation.  One  is  prop- 
erly said  to  be  inspired,  if  under  such  conduct  of  the  divine 
Spirit  as  secures  him  from  mistake  and  error.1 

4.  Doddridge. 

Doddridge  (fl751)  distinguished  different  kinds  or  degrees  of 
inspiration,  after  the  manner  of  Whitby. 

a.  Inspiration  of  Superintendence. 

This  implies  such  a  direction  of  the  mind  of  a  human  writer 
of  the  Scriptures,  that  he  is  made  more  secure  from  error  than 
he  could  have  been  by  the  mere  use  of  his  natural  faculties. 
Complete  freedom  from  error  in  declaring  doctrines  and  stating 
facts  implies  plenary  or  f nil  inspiration.  Here  many  things  may 
be  known  and  recorded  by  the  employment  of  the  writer's  un- 
aided powers.  The  absolute  truth  of  contents,  both  as  to  fact 
and  doctrine,  implies  full  inspiration,  though  the  words,  phrases, 
and  manner  be  left  to  the  human  author,  and  imperfection  of 
style  and  method  be  the  result.  In  a  book  intended  to  teach  truth 
for  practical  ends,  such  defects  furnish  no  warrant  for  rejecting 
its  authority.  The  New  Testament  was  written  under  this  in- 
spiration.2 

b.  Inspiration  of  Elevation. 

Where  this  occurs,  such  elevation  of  human  powers  is  implied 
as  to  make  the  resulting  productions  more  sublime,  noble  and 
pathetic  than  they  could  be  as  the  result  of  merely  natural  genius. 
A  part  of  the  Bible  was  written  under  this  inspiration.  God 
only  can  draw  the  line  here  between  the  natural  and  the  super- 


1  Inspiration  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  pp.  30  ff. 
'2  Dissertation  on  Inspiration.     Works,  vol.  11:194. 


AN    OUTLINE    historical    BTUDT.  71 

natural.     Such  inspiration  may  possibly  have  existed  in  the  case 
of  some  heathen  writer-. 

c.  Inspiration  of  Suggestion. 

This  is  the  highest  kind,  and  exists  when  God  speaks  directly 
to  the  mind,  communicating  what  it  could  not  otherwise  know, 
dictating  every  word,  making  the  human  author  a  mere  auditor 
or  secretary  of  the  divine.  The  Apocalypse  and  some  other  parts 
of  the  New  Testament  were  written  under  this  influence.1 

5.    Bishop    \Y<i /'burton. 

This  prelate  (f  1779)  calls  the  verbal  dictation  theory  of  inspi- 
ration "a  spurious  opinion,  begotten  in  the  Jewish  church  by 
superstition,  and  nursed  up  by  mistaken  piety  in  the  Chrhi'mn. 
which  hath  almost  passed  into  an  article  of  faith.''2  This  shows 
incidentally  the  strength  and  prevalence  of  orthodox  views  in 
England  during  his  day. 

After  stating  the  objections  to  the  strict  theory,  and,  as  he 
thinks,  proving  their  validity,  he  sets  forth  his  own  idea  of  inspi- 
ration somewhat  as  follows:  'The  Holy  Spirit  so  directed  the 
pens  of  the  writers  that  no  considerable  error  should  fall  from 
them.  He  enlightened  their  minds  with  his  immediate  influence 
in  all  such  matters  as  were  necessary  for  the  instruction  of  the 
church,  but  was  content  to  preserve  them  by  the  more  ordinary 
means  of  providence  from  any  mistakes  of  consequence  concern- 
ing those  things  which  they  had  learned  by  the  common  way  of 
information.  In  short,  he  watched  over  them  incessantly,  but 
with  so  suspended  a  hand  as  permitted  the  use,  and  left  them  to 
the  guidance  of  their  own  faculties  while  they  kept  clear  of 
error.' s 

He  anticipates  and  refutes  the  objection  that  this 'partial  in- 
spiration,' so  called,  does  not  enable  us  to  distinguish  the  parts 
of  Scripture  which  were  written  under  the  influence  of  the  Spir- 
it, and  those  which  were  the  product  of  human  knowledge  only. 
"  What  matters  this  '.  "  he  says.  "All  we  need  to  be  assured  of  is 
that   every  sentence  of   Scripture    which   but   remotely  concerns 


1  Diuertation  "u  Inspiration. 

•  Works,  vol.  VIII.    Doctriru  of  Grace,  273. 
3  Doct.  of  Grace,  pp.  27.-,.  276. 


72  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   INSPIRATION  : 

either  faith  or  practice,  is  infallibly  true. 1     It  is  no  matter  how 
truth  comes  to  us,  if  only  we  have  it  fully  and  certainly." 

lie  thinks  the  partial  theory  important  from  an  apologetic 
point  of  view,  '  to  free  the  infallible  word  of  Scripture  from  all 
those  embarassing  circumstances  which  have  been  so  artfully  and 
disingenuously  thrown  out  to  its  discredit.'2 

6.  Middleton. 

Dr.  C.  Middleton  (f  1750),  though  a  noted  divine  and  scholar 
of  the  Church  of  England,  has  often  been  regarded  as  a  disbe- 
liever in  the  fundamental  truths  of  Christianity.  Not  only  did 
his  views  diverge  from  those  even  of  the  English  latitudinarians 
hitherto  considered,  but  liis  whole  spirit  and  character  were  so 
different  that,  with  his  disciple  Wakefield,  he  deserves  a  place  by 
himself  at  the  end  of  the  list. 

His  aim  seems  to  have  been  to  eradicate  as  far  as  possible  the 
supernatural  element  from  the  Scriptures,  and  to  subvert  by  any 
and  every  possible  method  the  received  view  of  their  infallible 
inspiration.  He  says  bitterly  that  the  orthodox  doctrine  on  this 
subject  is  'a  clog  and  incumbrance  to  Christianity  with  all  rational 
and  thinking  men,'  and  'has  no  other  foundation  but  in  the  mis- 
taken sense  of  certain  texts  suggested  by  the  prejudice  of  pious 
men.' 3  He  grounds  these  statements  partly  on  the  so-called  evi- 
dence of  fact,  saying  that  '  everyone  may  see  apparent  marks  of 
human  frailty  in  the  Scriptures,  not  only  in  style  and  language, 
but  sometimes  also  in  matter.' 

The  evangelists  make  not  the  least  pretensions  to  infallibility, 
and  the  apostles  on  some  occasions  distinctly  disclaim  it.  '  Paul 
was  sometimes  destitute  of  divine  assistance  in  explaining  partic- 
ular doctrines ;  and  contradictions  exist  in  the  gospels  which  are 
incapable  of  reconciliation.4  Two  examples  of  his  style  of  criti- 
cism may  illustrate  his  spirit  and  method: 

"  Matthew  either  wilfully  suppressed  or  negligently  omitted 
three  successive  descents  from  father  to  son  in  the  first  chapter 
of  his  gospel.5 


1  Boot,  of  Grace,  p.  277. 

2  Id.,  279.  % 

3  Works,  vol.  II:  19,  20. 

4  Reflections  on  the  Variations  found  in  tlie  Four  Era  iaj,  lists. 

5  Works,  vol.  II :  24. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORIC  \l.    8T1  DT.  !'■> 

With  v^'U-rrwcr  to  the  protevangelic  promise,  "  men  who  inquire 
into  things  will  meet  with  many  absurdities  which  reason  must 
wink  at,  and  many  incredibilities  which  faith  must  digest,  before 
they  can  admit  the  authority  of  this  prophecy  upon  the  evidence 
of  this  historical  narration."  ' 

7.   Wakefield. 

Gilbert  Wakefield  (f  L801)  published  (1781)  an  'Essay  on  Inspi- 
ration,5 which  is  thus  smmiicd  up  by  Mr.  Leslie  Stephen":  ''He 
argued  that  the  inspiration  of  the  gospel  was  'unnecessary  because 
strength  of  judgment,  adequate  information  and  unbiased  affection 
are  sufficient  guarantees  for  historical  accuracy.'  It  was 'inexpe- 
dient and  improbable'  because  a  complete  consistency  would  have 
led  to  suspicions  of  complicity. 

"It  was  disclaimed  by  the  writer-  themselves,  and  cases  of  abso- 
lute contradiction  could  be  produced.  Christ  wished  to  show  the 
efficacy  of  truth  operating  without  supernatural  advantages." 

Mr.  Stephen  sets  down  the  production  as  little  more  than  an 
imitation  of  the  older  attack  of  Middleton. 


I.     THE     DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION     IN    THE 
NINETEENTH  CENTURY. 

We  have  already  passed  the  dividing  line  which  separates  the 
presenl  century  from  the  past,  and  here  perhaps  a  purely  histori- 
cal survey  should  stop.  Yet  surely  the  questions  concerning 
inspiration  are  living  ones,  ami  |>os>e>s  an  interest  and  importance 
other  than  that  which   is  strictly  historical.      Some  enthusiasts  call 

them  the 'burning,  blazing' questions  of  the  day  and  hour.  We 
may  at  least  he  justified  in  presenting  a  sketch  of  the  opinions  of 
some  leading  and  representative  writers. 

I.     German  Rationalists. 

Wegscheider (f  1849)  held  that  the  power  by  which  the  Scripture 
writer- weic  enabled  to  fullil  their  task  differed   in  do  essential 


1  Works,  Vol.  Ill:  is:;. 

-'  Hist.  <if  F.ii'j.  Thought  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  Vol.  II:  1 12  '■'•. 

li 


74  THE    DOCTTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION: 

respect  Prom  that  possessed  in  common  by  all  men  as  a  gift  from 
the  Almighty,  and  manifested  in  the  ordinary  exercise  of  the 
moral  and  rational  nature.  He  therefore  made  the  essence  of 
inspiration  to  consist  simply  in  the  fact  that  the  sacred  writers,  in 
the  spirit  of  piety,  referred  to  God  their  good  thoughts  and  ideas, 
and  recorded  them  under  divine  guidance  and  assistance.1 

2.   Jh  Wette. 

This  theologian  (f  1849)  says:  "The  biblical  doctrine  of  inspi- 
ration does  not  imply  the  superstitious  notion  of  an  influence  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  sacred  writers,  abrogating  the  laws  of 
nature,  nor  the  exaggerated  extension  of  inspiration  to  all  things 
and  everything  in  the  Scriptures,  nor  yet  the  admission  of  their 
unconditional  and  unlimited  infallibility. 

"The  essential  idea  is  rather  the  religious  sense  of  the  divine 
working,  or  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  sacred  writers,  and  this 
indeed  solely  in  regard  to  their  belief  and  elevation  of  soul,  not  in 
regard  to  their  formation  of  ideas.  It  bore  relation  to  historic 
truth,  only  in  so  far  as  its  knowledge  was  dependent  upon  a  holy 
love  of  truth." 2 

Baur  criticises  this  as  the  familiar  phraseology  with  which 
rationalism  seeks  to  conceal  the  shallowness  of  its  views.3 

II.     Schleiermacher. 

Schleiermacher  (f  1834)  gave  up  the  old  ecclesiastical  theory  of 
inspiration,  and  advocated  views  which  formed  on  the  whole  its 
direct  antithesis.  These  views,  utterly  unsound  from  the  stand- 
point of  orthodoxy,  were  yet  thought  to  mark  essential  progress 
in  the  history  of  the  doctrine. 

Schleiermacher  taught : 

1.  That  the  Spirit  by  which  the  Scriptures  are  inspired  is  not 
the  personal  Holy  Ghost,  but  rather  the  'genius'  of  Christianity 
individualizing  itself  in  the  sacred  writers,  and  related  to  them  as 
the  general  to  the  particular.  This  theologian  promptly  dismisses 
every  question  as  to  the  more  exact  relation  of  this  Holy  ('host  to 
the  Third  Person  of  the  Trinity. 


1  rnstituttones,  ill. 

':  Dogmatikder  Luth.  Kirch.,  p.  41. 

:;  Dogm.-gesch.,  Ill:  428. 


A\    OUTLINE    fflSTOBK   \l.    &1  DDT.  7~> 

2.  The  idea  of  inspiration  is  to  be  properly  understood  only 
from  the  history  in  which  it  appears.  Tins  inseparable  connec- 
tion of  the  inspiration-idea  and  a  definite  history,  Schleiermacher 
maintains,  and  makes  his  point  of  departure.  Cremer  remarks : 
"Whether  his  conception  is  sufficiently  broad  and  attaches  to 
actual  history,  or  merely  to  the  theory  of  the  same,  is  another 
matter."1 

:;.  Inspiration  was  not  a  transienl  Btate,  but  a  permanent  attri- 
bute of  the  apostles-  a  part  of  their  collective  official  activity.  It 
was  monstrous,  he  held,  to  maintain  (for  the  purpose  of  giving 
special  prominence  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures)  that  the 
apostles  were  less  animated  and  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
other  parts  of  their  official  work  than  in  the  act  of  writing.8 
Special  apostolic  inspiration  is  nothing  appertaining  exclusively 
to  the  New  Testament  hooks:  these  only  participate  in  it.  and 
inspiration  in  this  narrower  sense,  as  it  is  conditioned  by  the  purity 
and  completeness  of  the  apostolic  apprehension  of  Christianity,  so 

it   extend-   to   all    the    official    apOStolic   activity    proceeding   there- 
from.3 

4.  The  New  Testament, on  the  other  hand  (while  strictly  super- 
natural neither  in  origin  nor  contents),  is  yet  the  most  original  and 
the  purest  expression  of  the  new  life  flowing  from  Christ.  No  sub- 
sequent writings  can  be  compared  with  those  whose  authors  stood 
under  the  purifying  influence  of  his  living  memory.  To  all  later 
works  thc\  must  possess,  in  some  sense,  a  normative  significance 
and  relation. 

5.  So  far  as  the  Old  Testament  is  concerned.  Schleiermacher 
taught  that  it  proceeded  not  from  the  'genius'  (gemein-geist)  of 
Christianity,  but  from  the  narrow  national  spirit  of  Judaism. 
Belief  in  its  special  inspiration,  or  in  the  fact  of  a  revelation 
made  to  the  Jewish  people,  he  regarded  as  inconsistent  with  the 
advanced  stage  of  information  respecting  Jewish  history,  faith 
in   the    revelation    of   Grod    in    Christ,  he   declared,  was   in    noway 

dependent  upon  the  acceptance  of  tin'  Jewish  canon.'     lie  ex- 
plained   the  admission   of   the  Old  Testament   books  to  a    place  in 


1  Qerzog,  Art.  Inspiration,  '•'>',. 
■  Baur,  />".</«'•  getch.,  Ill:  129. 
>  W.  ib. 

1  I<1..   Ill:    111 


7<i  THE   DOCTRINE   OF    inspiration  ', 

the  Christian  canon,  partly  from  the  appeals  made  to  them  by 
New  Testament  writers,  and  partly  from  the  historical  connec- 
tion between  Christian  worship  and  the  .Jewish  Bynagogue.1 

Rationalistic  as  these  views  of  Schleiermacher  clearly  were,  it  is 
nevertheless  true  that  the  general  influence,  both  of  the  man  him- 
self and  of  his  doctrinal  system,  was  opposed  to  rationalism,  and 
in  favor  of  positive  faith  in  a  positive  revelation. 

III.    Supernaturalism. 

This  was  a  product  of  the  transition  period,  and,  while  main- 
taining old  forms  of  expression,  departed  essentially  from  the 
old  orthodox  Lutheran  faith.  The  older  divines  had  based  their 
theory  of  inspiration  upon  the  inner  necessity  of  the  thing ;  the 
snpernaturalists  founded  theirs  on  the  promise  of  Christ  to  bestow 
his  Spirit  on  the  apostles.  The  historical  certainty  of  inspiration, 
then,  rested  upon  the  authority  and  trustworthiness  of  Jesus  as  an 
immediate  divine  teacher.2  'Supernaturalism'  found  the  super- 
natural element  in  revelation,  not  in  the,  form  but  in  the  contents 
of  the  sacred  writings.  Upon  revelation  it  laid  chief  stress,  and 
viewed  the  apostles  as  the  chief  witnesses  thereto.3  To  this  school 
the  trust  worthiness  of  the  Scriptures  was  of  supreme  importance, 
rather  than  their  divine  origin  and  authority.  It  was  believed  that 
in  the  written  records,  the  assistance  of  the  Spirit  was  enjoyed 
to  such  a  degree  as  to  preserve  the  authors  from  error  in  matters 
of  faith.  In  regard  to  non-essentials  they  were  left  to  the  exercise 
of  their  own  faculties,  and  of  course  were  fallible. 

1.  Twesten. 

This  divine  was  one  of  the  snpernaturalists  attaching  himself  to 
the  school  of  Schleiermacher.  Like  Xitzsch,  he  professed  not  to 
deviate  essentially  from  the  definitions  of  the  older  theologians, 
but  rather  to  accept  them.  None  the  less  does  he  confeBS  a  mul- 
titude of  weaknesses  in  the  old  theory,  and  therefore  make  the 
more  desperate  effort  to  save  his  orthodoxy,  and  at  the  same  time 
preserve'  his  allegiance  to  his  master,  lie  actually  succeeded,  like 
other  divines  of  this  class,  in  wavering  between  the  two.1 


1  Beck,  Dogm.-gesch.,  123. 
•:  Baur,  Dogm.-gesch.,  111:428. 

3  EZahnis,  Luther.  Dogm,,  288. 

4  Baur,  Dogm.-gesch.,  Ill:  430. 


A.\    <>n  l.l.\  i:    HI8TOBICAL    81  I  DT.  7  i 

2.  Ehoert. 

'It  was  reserved  for  Elwert  (f  L865)  to  develop  mosl  thor- 
oughly the  theory  of  inspiration  based  upon  principles  laid  down 
l>v  Schleiermacher.  This  view  supposes  the  apostles  to  have  been 
inspired,  only  in  so  far  as  the  Spirit  works  in  them  a  faith  by 
which  they  appropriated  to  themselves  the  revelation  of  Christ, 
and  SO  far  as  from  this,  by  means  of  faith,  in  the  natural  way  of 
reflection,  their  religions  ideas  and  conceptions  found  develop- 
ment.3 ' 

The  differences  between  this  later  and  the  earlier  idea  of  inspi- 
ration, are  thus  summed  up." 

a.  "The  sacred  writers  in  the  composition  of  their  Works  were 
by  no  means  in  a  purely  passive  condition  ;  they  rather  made  use 
of  their  natural  powers  and  capacities,  and  impressed  upon  their 
productions  unmistakably  the  stamp  of  their  own  individuality. 

1>.  "  The  possession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  case  of  the  apostles 
was  generically  one  with  the  participation  of  others  in  the  same 
gift;  but,  agreeably  to  the  end  which  was  to  be  accomplished 
through  them,  and  conformably  to  their  relation  to  the  original 
revelation  in  Christ,  it  was  in  their  ease  pre-eminent  in  degree. 

c.  "The  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  them  was  not  a 
suggestion  of  elaborated  ideas  and  knowledges.  The  Spirit  rather 
wrought  in  them  the  faith  which  was  the  mediating  element 
between  their  religious  conceptions  and  the  revelation  of  Christ. 

d.  "The  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  to  he  referred,  not  BO 
much  to  individual  matters  as  to  the  whole  manner  of  thinking 
and  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  apostles,  within  whom  he  dwelt  as 
a  permanent  principle.  Tin-  older  theory  was  right  in  so  far  a-  it 
admitted  his  activity  in  every  single  part:    in  the  resolution  to 

write,  in  the  formation  of  the  thoughts  and  words,  and  in  selec- 
tion and  arrangement.  But.it  was  wrong  in  this,  that  it  admitted 
that  relation  of  the  divine  activity  at  all  points,  equally  and 
immediately. 

e.  "The  idea  of  ;m  unconditional  infallibility  of  the  apostolic 
writings  is  to  be  abandoned,  [nfallible  they  were,  in  so  far  as 
this,  thai  they,  and  indeed  they  alone,  lead  the  Christian  soul  to 


1  Baur,  Dogm.-ga8ch.,  Ill:  480. 
-  1.1.  ib. 


78  THE    1KMTKIXK    OF    INSPIRATION  '. 

life  iii  Christ,  and  transmit  the  fundamental  truths  in  a  perfectly 
trustworthy  way.  In  other  respects  infallibility  cannot  be  proved. 
f.  "The/"/'///  belongs  to  the  individuality  of  the  apostles,  and 
the  influences  they  derived  from  their  age.  Each  age  has  to 
conceive  Christian  doctrine  in  the  form  peculiar  to  it,  and  to 
mould  it  into  system.  If  this  form  is  penetrated  with  the  spirit  of 
Christianity,  then  all  the  manifoldness  of  the  same  is  unattended 
with  danger.  For  it  is  the  way  of  the  Spirit  to  exhibit  itself  in 
manifold  form.  Just  because  it  is  the  Spirit  of  Eternal  Revelation, 
it  cannot,  Christ  excepted,  express  itself  fully  and  completely  in 
any  finite  spirit."  ' 

IV.     More  General  Evangelical. 

This  term  is  intended  merely  as  a  designation  of  the  general 
views  and  sympathies  of  the  writers  whose  names  appear  under 
it,  without  attempting  to  define  more  exactly  their  precise  theo- 
logical position. 

1.  JSfeander. 

This  divine  (f  1850),  declared  his  conviction  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  distinguish  what  is  divme  from  what  is  hwmom  in  the  gospel 
record.  "I  am  sure,"  he  says,  "that  the  fall  of  the  old  form  of 
the  doctrine  of  inspiration,  and  indeed  of  many  other  doctrinal 
prejudices,  will  not  only  not  involve  the  fall  of  the  essence  of  the 
gospel,  but  will  cause  it  no  detriment  whatever.  Nay,  I  believe 
it  will  be  more  clearly  and  accurately  understood,  and  men  will  be 
better  prepared  to  fight  with  and  eoncpier  that  inrushing  infidelity, 
against  which  the  weapons  of  the  old  dogmatism  must  be  powerless 
in  any  land,  and  that  from  such  a  struggle  a  new  theology,  puri- 
fied and  renovated  in  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  must  arise." 

Xeanders  own  view  of  inspiration  may  be  gathered  from  the 
following  passage:  "If  we  find,  on  close  inquiry,  that  the 
historical  statements  of  the  evangelists  are  somewhat  obscured 
by  subjective  influences,  our  estimate  of  their  veracity  need  in 
no  wise  be  affected  thereby.  Such  a.  result  would  not  conflict  in 
the  least  with  the  only  tenable  idea  of  inspiration.  The  organs 
which  the   Holy  Ghost   illuminated   and   inspired   to  convey  his 


1  Bau r,  Dogm.  -gesch,  III,  I  ">  I . 

2  Life  of  Christ,  Pref.  p.  xi. 


AX    OUTLINE    BI8TOBIOAL    BTUDY.  i  •' 

truth  to  men,  retained  their  individual  peculiarites,  and  remained 
within  the  sphere  of  the  psychological  laws  of  our  being.  Besides, 
inspiration,  both  in  its  nature  and  its  object,  refers  only  to  man's 
religions  interests,  and  to  points  connected  with  it."' 

2.  Stier. 

Stin-  it  L862)  attempted  to  vindicate  the  old  Lutheran  doc- 
trine of  verbal  inspiration,  but  could  nipt  avoid  important  critical 
concessions. 

Bis  theory  was  in  some  respects  peculiar.  Hemaintained  that 
the  Scriptures  give  us  the  thoughts,  not  of  its  individual  authors, 
but  of  the  Spirit,  speaking  through  them.  Inspiration  applies  not 
to  the  words  but  to  the  Word.  "  We  possess  what  Christ  spoke, 
not  indeed  the  very  words  themselves,  literally  understood,  but  as 
indicated  through  the  testimony  of  the  Evangelists,  and  elevated 
into  the  Spirit." 

The  Scripture  is  infallible  so  far  as  general  tenor  is  concerned, 
though  there  may  be  inaccuracies  in  minor  matters.  Being  firm 
in  the  orthodox  faith  that  the  Poly  Spirit  is  the  primary  author 
of  Scripture,  Stier  did  not  trouble  himself  about  the  canonicity  of 
the  human  authors.  In  his  own  development  of  the  doctrine  of 
inspiration,  be  exhibited  an  evangelical  mystic  tendency. 

3.  Phtti/ppi. 

The  general  sympathies  of  Philippi  were  with  the  conservative 
and  strict  construction  of  our  doctrine.  Yet  he  comprehends 
inspiration  under  the  more  general  idea  of  '  illumination, '  i.  e.,  the 
enlightening  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit  upon  the  church,  from 
which,  however,  he  is  careful  to  distinguish  it  in  various  ways." 
He  defines  inspiration  as  'that  act  of  the  Spirit  of  God  upon  the 
human  spirit,  by  means  of  which  the  Latter  becomes,  as  it  were 
the  object  of  revelation,  and  is  enabled  to  receive  it  pure  and 

unsullied  ;'  or,  'that   contact  of  the  human   spirit  with   the   Spirit 

of  God  through  which  the  revelation  of  the  Latter,  in  it>-  pure  and 
undistorted  forms,  becomes  the  possession  of  the  former.' 

lie  distinguishes  three  degrees  of  inspiration—the  legal,  the 
prophetic,  and   the  apostolic,  each   higher,   more  complete,  and 


1  /.//;  <;/'  Christ,  p.  47. 
,;  Kirchl.  Qlavbend.,  [:2<H 

■'•  l.l..  I:  322  :;. 


80  THE    DOCTKINE    OF    I.N'si'l  KA'l'lo.X  : 

perfect  than  the  other.1     The  last  or  apostolic  stage  is   substan- 
tially coincident  with  revelation,  the  difference  between  the  two 

being   ideal    rather  than   actual. 

4.  Rothe* 

Rothe  (f  1867)  maintained  with  steadfast  determination  the 
revealed  character  of  Christianity.  He  did  indeed  abandon  the 
old  theory  of  inspiration,  but  only  to  undertake  its  scientific  recon- 
struction on  what  seemed  to  him  more  sure  foundations.2 

To  him  the  Bible  is  not  the  word  of  God,  in  the  sense  of  an  im- 
mediate communication  of  religious  doctrine.3  It  is  not  revelation 
itself,  but  rather  its  record,  in  the  purest  and  fullest  meaning  of  the 
term.  It  is  simply  the  overflow  of  the  fulness  of  the  divine  life  of 
its  authors.  The  Bible  is  not  inspired,  in  the  old  dogmatic  sense  of 
the  word,  for  inspiration  does  not  relate  to  literary  activity.  It  is 
not  a  religious  text-book,  but  rather  a  historical  record,  which,  as  a 
constituent  part  of  revelation,4  must  be  penetrated  and  surrounded 
by  the  peculiar  atmosphere  of  the  same,  i.  e.,  by  the  divine  breath 
which  it  inhales.  Nevertheless,  from  its  historic  character  it  must 
be  content  patiently  to  abide  the  free  scientific  investigations  of 
historical  criticism  respecting  the  canon  as  a  whole,  and  the  canon- 
icity  of  single  parts ;  for  the  great  revolution  in  religious  knowledge 
which  characterizes  modern  tisies  finds  the  foundation  and  centre 
of  Christianity,  not  in  a  book,  but  in  a  person;  not  in  a  doctrinal 
system,  but  in  facts  and  deeds,  i.  e.,  in  history.5 

5.  Ma/rtensen. 

Martensen,  bishop  of  Seeland,  Denmark,  occupies  in  general  the 
position  of  Rothe,  though  modified  by  the  influence  of  Schleier- 
macher.     With  reference  to — 

a.  The  Nature  of  Inspiration 
he  holds,  in  the  first  place,  to  an  inseparable  union  between  the 
miracle  of   the  Incarnation  and   that   of   inspiration.    'Properly 
speaking,  they  arc  only  the  two  sides — one  objective  and  the  other 


i  Kin-hl.  Qlaubend.,  I:  223  11. 

2  Kalinis,   Luther.   Dogm.,  287. 

:!  Rothe,  Zur  Dogmatik  (1863);  Dritte  Abhand.,  L55. 

1  1.1.,  86,  I'.".),  319. 

■•  Id.  317. 


A\    OUTLINE    BI8TOBICAL' STUDY.  81 

subjective— of  the  one  fundamental  miracle  of  the  new  creation, 
to  which  the  Christian  church  traces  it-  origin.1 

The  miracle  of  inspiration  took  place  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
and  was  the  breaking  forth  of  theSpirit  of  God  within  the  spirit 
of  man.  The  gift  of  tongues  was  essentially  a  Btate  of  ecstasy,  but 
this  did  not  constitute  inspiration.  It  was  only  its  accompaniment, 
and  as  it  were  a  shell   or   husk,  within    which    was   contained,   and 

out  of  which  proceeded  the  clear  and  historical  consciousness  of 
revelation.8 

[nspiration  in  the  primitive  age  was  not  confined  exclusively  to 
the  apostles,  bul  (distinguishing  degrees  in  the  same)  was  bestowed 
upon  them  in  its  fulness  for  their  official  work  as  founders  of  the 
church.'  Their  relation  to  the  Spirit  was  not  one  of  bondage,  but 
rather  of  freedom;  and  in  their  case  inspiration  consisted  in  a  pro- 
gressive  communication  of  the  Spirit,  going  hand  in  hand  with  the 
progressive  development  both  of  consciousness  and  of  freedom.4 
Personality  in  the  Scripture'  writers  was  therefore  not  lost,  hut 
preserved,  intensified  and  elevated.  It  is  to  he  noted  also  that  not 
the  individual,  hut  the  total  apostolic  consciousness  can  be  taken 
a-  an  adequate  expression  of  the  mind  of  the  Spirit;  and  this  was 
raised  above  temporal  limitations  and  imperfect  ions  only  in  regard 
to  the  articles  of  fundamental  truth.6 

In  the  Holy  Scriptures  Martensen  finds  the  ripened  fruit  of 

inspiration.  lie  would  emphasize  both  the  union  and  the  dis- 
tinction of  the  divine  and  human  elements  contained  therein/ 
The  formula  of  the  former  is, '  the  Scripture  is  the  word  of  God  :' 
that  of  the  latter,  'the  Scriptures  conta/im  the  word  of  God.' 
Each  is  true  when  properly  defined  and  explained. 

h.   The  Extent  of  Inspiration. 

Martensen    would    not    extend    inspiration    to    every    tittle    and 

every  point  in  the  Bible.1     Something  transient  and  casual  exists 

in  every  1 k  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  also  in  the  New.     We 

cannot  maintain  the  representative  character  of  everything  in  the 


1  Christian  Dogmatic*,  19. 

•  [d.,  388,  839. 
«  [d.,342. 

•  Id.,  843. 

•  I.I.,  348,  in.',  in::. 
"  1.1. .   in:;. 

■  I, I.,  ib. 


82  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION '. 

New  Testament  as  a  pattern  for  our  guidance :  e.  g.  community 
of  goods,  combination  of  the  agapae  with  the  Lord's  supper,  &c. 
Only  the  general  practice  of  the  church  is  exemplary  for  perma- 
lirnt  guidance.5 

He  does  not  view  possible  or  actual  contradictions  in  chrono- 
logical and  historical  details  as  harmful,  unless  of  such  a  kind  as 
to  affect  the  substcmoe  of  revelation,  i.  e.  to  distort  our  apprehen- 
sion of  Christ's  person,  or  disturb  the  fundamental  basis  of 
revealed  truth." 

G.    1L  if i  in  i  ii. 

This  divine  was  inclined  to  a  free  construction  of  the  doctrine 
of  inspiration.3  He  regarded  the  limitation  of  the  idea  to  Scrip- 
ture as  unwarranted  and  arbitrary,  and  would  himself  extend  it  to 
heathen  writings  and  poets.  He  said  that  the  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion was  nothing  else  than  a  '  conclusion-backward '  (Ruckschluss) 
from  the  cha/racter  of  the  Scriptures  to  their  origin.  From  this 
view  also  resulted  the  theory  of  its  infallibility.  He  would  not 
himself  admit  that  the  teaching  of  any  single  apostle  was  abso- 
lutely free  from  error ;  much  less  could  any  one  portraiture  of 
Christ  adequately  set  forth  the  full  glory  of  its  subject.  He  did 
affirm,  however,  that  the  collective  preaching  of  the  apostles  con- 
tained the  conditions  of  an  absolutely  errorless  apprehension  of 
Christ.  (Compare  Martensen  above.)  The  Bible,  accordingly,  is 
not  wholly  free  from  error,  but  it  is  the  perfectly  sufficient  instru- 
ment for  attaining  an  absolutely  infallible  knowledge  of  divine 
revelation,  since  it  contains  within  itself  the  means  of  self- 
purification  from  the  errors  clinging  to  its  individual  parts :  i.  e. 
it  contains  the  means  of  self -correction.  This  is  its  actual  infalli- 
bility, and  herein  also  lies  its  sufficiency." 

7.  ThoUch. 

This  theologian  in  his  'Essay  on  the  Doctrine  of  Inspiration' 
maintains : 

a.  That  what  is  known  as  the  old  orthodox  theory  ( i.  e.  the 
high  Lutheran)  is  in  reality  modern,  not  dating  back  even  to  the 
Reformat  ion. 


1  Christ  in  a  Dogmatics,  405. 
"1.1.,  404. 

3  Schrift-bemi*.  passim. 

4  Beck,  Dogm.-gesch.,  127. 


A.V    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDT.  83 

1>.  That  it  was  developed  as  a  means  of  furnishing  to  Protes- 
tantism a  counter-infallibility  to  that  claimed  by  Catholicism  for 
oecumenical  councils  and  the  pope. 

c  That  in  reality  it  has  placed  in  the  hands  of  rationalism  a 
most  formidable  weapon  of  attack  upon  the  church. 

d.  That  the  free  conception  of  the  doctrine,  so  far  from  being 
the  fruit  of  modern  rationalism,  has  had  its  advocates  in  every  age 
of  the  church,  and  must  perforce  find  recognition  and  acceptance 
as  the  result  of  careful  and  candid  reflection  upon  the  text  of 
Scripture.1 

The  main  part  of  the  essay  is  an  ardent  polemic  against  the 
received  doctrine  of  the  absolute  inspiration  and  infallibility  of 
the  Scriptures,  evidence  being  drawn  not  only  from  the  history  of 
Opinion,  but  also  from  the  character  and  constitution  of  the  sacred 
books  themselves,  lie  asserts  the  clear  and  certain  existence  of 
imperfections  and  errors  in  the  Scriptures  as  we  have  them,  hut 
thinks  that  so  long  as  these  do  not  touch  essential  matters,  i.  e.  the 
substance  of  revealed  truth,  they  can  do  no  damage  to  Christian 
faith,  nor  to  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  properly  conceived.  The 
witness  of  the  Spirit  is  certain  to  faith,  and  faith  once  become 
conscious  of  its  own  essential  character,  unhesitatingly  leaves  to 
Bcience  all  that  transcends  this  province.2 

Tholuck's  work  thus  appears  to  be  mainly  negative  or  destruc- 
tive. He  has,  however,  positive  convictions  of  his  own,  and 
devotes  the  concluding  part  of  the  essay  to  a  defence  and  proof  of 
his  position,  that  a  divine  and  infallible  inspiration,  i.  e.  a  direct 
and  absolute  witness  of  the  Spirit,  does  relate  to  the  kernel  of  Scrip- 
ture, in  other  words,  to  its  properly  revealed  pa/rta^  including 
everything  that  concerns  the  Christian  doctrine  of  salvation. 

8.  Dusterdiech. 

Dusterdieck  published,  a  number  of  years  since,  a  volume  en- 
titled "  Apologetische  Beitrage,"  mainly  devoted  to  the  question 

of   inspiration  in  relation  to  the  individuality  of  the  sacred  writers, 
and  their  real  or  supposed  mistakes. 

lie  believes  that  they  did  fall  into  errors,  e.  g.}  Mich  as  that  of 
expecting  Christ's  near  return,  but  holds  that  this  (lid  not  in 
any  measure  detracl  from  their  authority. 


1  Baur,  Dogm.-geseh.,  Ill:  489. 

■Tboluck,  translated  in  Nbyetf  TheoL  Essays,  105,  10G. 


&4  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    IN'sn  UATlox  : 

"*]  believe,"  lie  says,  "on  the  one  hand,  in  a  theory  of  in- 
spiration which  admits  the  possibility  of  errors,  not  only  in  his- 
torical and  other  external  matters,  luit  even  in  matter  of  doctrine. 
On  the  other  hand,  T  reject   every  theory  of  the  nature  of  the 

Scriptures,  and  the  inspiration  of  its  writers  as  false  and  destructive, 
which  is  incompatible  with  Paul's  declaration  in  I  Thess.  ii :  13, 
"When  ye  received  the  word  of  God  which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye 
received  it  not  as  the  word  of  men,  but,  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  word 
of  God." 

9.  Hengsteriberg, 

The  views  of  this  theologian  (f  1869)  upon  inspiration  seem  in 
many  respects  like  those  of  'one  born  out  of  due  time,'  but  really 
correspond  with  his  reactionary  ideas  upon-  other  matters,  lie 
occupied  very  nearly  the  position  of  Philo  and  of  Justin  Martyr, 
and  the  other  old  apologists. 

He  finds  the  source  of  inspiration  in  prophetic  ecstasy,  which 
necessarily  involves  the  cessation  of  human  agency  and  intelligent 
perception.  The  Hebrew  seers  were  not  merely  passive  instru- 
ments, but  were  actually  rapt  into  a  state  of  prophetic  frenzy, 
raving  like  the  Pythian  priestess  or  the  other  heathen  sibyls  and 
soothsayers  of  antiquity.  The  other  developments  of  Hengsten- 
berg's  theory  can  easily  be  imagined. 

10.  Van  Oostersee. 

This  representative  of  the  evangelical  Dutch  school  may  be 
most  conveniently  mentioned  here.     lie  holds — 

a.  As  to  the  nature  of  inspiration,  that  it  was  not  an  external, 
mechanical,  blindly  impelling  force,  but  a  heavenly  influence  in- 
wardly exerted  upon  the  writers,  whereby  they  were  guided  and 
strengthened  for  self-activity.1  It  did  not  therefore  prejudice,  but 
rather  enlarge,  intensify  and  glorify  their  individuality.  The 
Holy  Spirit  took  possession  of  each  man,  and  used  him  as,  accord- 
ing to  the  nature  of  his  sanctified  personality,  he  really  was. 

Inspiration  is  not  to  be  conceived  as  a  mere  momentary  assist- 
ance granted  to  the  sacred  writers  exclusively  in  and  during  the 
act  of    writing,    but    as    the  natural   consequence  of    their   being 


Christian  Dogmatics,  I:  200. 


AN    OUTLINE    BI8TORICAL    STUDY.  85 

personally  led  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  controlled  their  thinking 
and  working,  and  in  this  way  also  their  writing.1 

I*.  These  men  were  in  a  special  manner,  but  in  varying  degrees, 
the  organs  of  the  I [oly  ( J-host. 

c.  Inspiration  extended  not  only  to  great  but  to  little  things  in 
Scripture,  not  only  to  the  things  taught,  but  to  the  words  and 
the  whole  style  of  speech.  This  is  argued  from  the  indissoluble 
onion  of  form  and  contents;  and  archaisms,  solecisms  and  other 
peculiarities  arc  nut  judged  inconsistent  with  this  view.1 

d.  Inspiration  had  it.--  limits. 

Van  Oosterzee  admits  real  contradictions  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
denies  unlimited  and  infallible  inspiration,  except  in  regard  to 
that  which  concerns  God's  savirtg  truth.3 

Our  study  of  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  as  held  by  the  theo- 
logians of  modern  Germany  cannot  fail  to  impress  us  strongly 
with  two  facts:  one,  the  strong  reaction  in  religious  minds  against 
the  destructive  excesses  of  theological  rationalism  in  the  last  cen- 
tury, with  especial  reference  to  our  doctrine  ;  and  the  Other,  the 
equally  strong  opposition  to  the  rigid  dogma  as  held  and  taught 
by  the  Protestant  scholastics  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

Whatever  the  varying  standpoints  of  the  German  theology  of 
the  present  age,  all  forms,  with  rare  exceptions,  agree  in  the  com- 
mon demand  of  a  fuller  recognition  of  the  hwmam  side  of  the 
Scriptures.  It  generally  admits  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  inspira- 
tion, no  genuine  and  fundamental  distinction  between  the  operation 

of  the   Holy  Spirit  upon  the  minds  of  the  sacred  writers,  and 
upon  common  Christian  believers.     The  difference  is  not  one  of 

kind,  but  Only  of   degree. 

A>  to  extent,  inspiration   covers  only  what  are  technically  called 

essential  truths, — room  is  left  for  endless  imperfections,  both  of 
form  and  of  fact,  provided  the  latter  concern  only  minor  details. 

Where    the    line    shall    he    drawn    between    the    'minor'   and    the 

•major,'  i>  confessedly  more  difficult  to  determine. 

The  Bible  is  not,  l>ut  contains  the  word  of  God.  Not  writings 
hut  men  were  inspired. 


1  Christian  Dogmatics,  I  :  801. 
"Id  808. 
3  Id.  802. 


St',  THE    DOOTBINE   OF    I.Xsi'TKATIo.V  : 

V.     French  Orthodoxy. 

Modern  French  orthodoxy  with  reference  to  the  doctrine  of 
inspiration  finds  its  chief  representatives  in  Gasparin  and  Gaussen. 
Both  have  published  treatises  which  have  been  translated  into 
English.1     Other  writers  have  taken  much  more  moderate  views. 

1.     (riltls.siil. 

This  divine  (f  1863)  taught  the  absolute  inspiration  and  divinity 
of  the  Scriptures  in  every  part — including  form  as  well  as  sub- 
stance, expression  as  well  as  matter.  He  says  :  "  The  word  of  God 
is  God  speaking  in  man,  God  speaking  by  man,  God  speaking 
as  man,  God  speaking  for  man." 

In  regard  to  Paul's  assertion  that  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God,  &c,"  he  remarks :  "  It  admits  of  no  restric- 
tion ;  it  is  the  whole  Scriptwre,  all  that  is  written  (jiaoo.  Ypau/>7J) — 
that  is  to  say,  the  thoughts  that  have  already  put  on  the  clothing 
of  language.  It  admits  of  no  restriction  ;  all  Scripture  is  so  far 
a  work  of  God  that  it  is  represented  as  given  to  us  by  the  breath 
of  God,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  word  of  a  man  is  given  by  the 
breath  of  his  mouth.  The  prophet  is  the  mouth  of  the  Most 
High." 2  Again  :  "  The  entire  Bible  is  not  only  named  the  '  Word 
of  God'  (6  X6jo<;  too  d-sou),  it  is  called  without  distinction,  the 
'  Oracles  of  God '  (ra  Xayta  too  &sou).  Who  does  not  know  what  the 
oracles  were  in  the  opinion  of  the  ancients '{  Was  there  then  a 
single  word  which  could  express  more  absolutely  a  complete  and 
verbal  inspiration?"  3 

Gaussen  professes  to  admit,  and  tries  to  illustrate  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  individuality  of  the  sacred  writers  when  under  the 
influence  of  inspiration.  He  repudiates  all  notion  of  the  state  of 
ecstasy,  and  maintains  their  self-control.  He  yet  refers  all  differ- 
ences in  biblical  accounts  of  the  same  transaction,  and  indeed  all 
the  human  as  well  as  the  divine  phenomena,  to  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
their  author.  Immediate  and  universal  divine  efficiency,  and  co- 
existent human  freedom  and  individuality,  he  affirms.  To  reconcile 
or  explain  the  two,  he  finds  of  course  a  very  different  matter. 


1  Gasparin,  "Plenary  Inspiration,'''  translated  by  Montgomery. 
Gaussen,  "  Tlieopneuatie"  1843.     h'ny.  trans,  by  Kirk,  1846. 

2  Gaussen,  p.  345. 

3  Id.,  p.  355. 


A.N    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY.  s7 

•J.     M<  ijln a. 

M.  A.uguste  Meylan,  ;i  Swiss  Protestant  pastor,  published  in 
1*77  a  treatise  on  the  ( ianonicity  and  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures- 
His  positions  are,  for  a  continental  divine,  on  the  whole  decidedly 
conservative.  Ele  defines  inspiration  as  'that  action  of  God  upon 
the  Bacred  writers,  which  put  them  in  a  condition  to  receive  the 
revelation  in  its  integrity,  and  transmit  it  to  US  without  altera- 
tion.' ' 

lie  disavows  all  sympathy  with  dictation  theories,  and   allows  a 

human  factor  in  the  composition  of  the  Scriptures.  He  admits 
progress  in  the  course  of  divine  revelation,  and  degrees  in  inspira- 
tion, varying  according  to  the  requirements  and  circumstances  of 
the  case.  He  even  concedes  contradictions  in  matters  of  minor 
detail  among  the  sacred  narratives,  hut  repudiates  the  consequence-, 
of  such  concessions. 

The  author  is  unable  to  bring  himself  to  the  admission  of  the 
distinctions,  so  generally  recognized  by  continental  writers  upon 
inspiration,  between  that  element  in  the  Bible  which  stands  in 
relation  to  human  Balvation,  and  that  which  has  no  connection 
with  it.  Once,  however,  he  seems  to  approximate  the  idea, 
(p.  188.) 

M.  Meylan  admits  a  difference  of  hmd,  and  not  merely  of 
degree  between  apostolic  authors  and  Christian  writers  in  general, 
thus  arraying  himself  against  the  the  rationalists,  and  allying  him- 
self with  pronounced  advocates  of  evangelical  orthodox  opinions. 

3.   Godet. 

Dr.  Godet,  professor  at  Neuchatel,  approving  in  general  the 
definition  of  inspiration  given  by  Meylan,  yet  declares  his  con- 
viction that  the  true  light  can  he  shed  upon  the  circle  of  questions 

relating  thereto  |  perhaps  the   most   difficult  in  all  sacred  science). 

only  by  a  clear  and  frank  admission  of  the  distinction  between 
the  Bible  and  the  word  of  God.  The  Bible  includes  more  than 
the  immediate  revelation  of  God.  It  contains  the  word  of  God, 
lui!  is  in. t  identical  with  it.  Nothing  can  be  more  delicate  than  the 
problems  which  grow  out  of  this  distinction,  bul  the  time  ha-  come 
tor  the  church  to  rise  to  the  recognition  of  this  important  fact.' 


1  Revue  Chretienne,  lsTs,  p.  :,;. 
5 Id.,  ii.. 


88  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    EN8PESATH  >\  : 

French  rationalism,  in  the  persons  of  Eclnmnd  Scherer,  Colani 
and  other  writers  in  the  "Revue  de  Theologie,"  has  asserted 
German  freedom  of  investigation. 

VI.     Opinion  in  England. 

We  have  seen  that  the  evangelic  orthodoxy  of  Germany  has 

not  yet  recovered  from  the  blighting  effects  of  the  rationalistic 
reaction  of  the  eighteenth  century  against  the  dogmatic  exaggera- 
tions and  absurdities  of  the  seventeenth.  It  is  but  fair  then  to 
notice  that  in  Great  Britain  and  America  a  counter-revolution  set 
in  against  previously  prevailing  latitudinarianism,  in  favor  of 
higher,  stricter  and  more  churchly  views  concerning  the  divine 
origin  and  character  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The  doctrine  of  the 
plenary  inspiration  and  infallible  authority  of  the  Bible  has  had 
during  the  present  century  a  long  line  of  champions,  all  of  whom 
with  pious  intent,  and  not  a  few  with  learning  and  acuteness,  have 
defended  what  was  to  them  the  cause  of  truth,  and  foundation  of 
the  'faith  once  delivered.1  The  reader  will  at  once  recall  the 
names  of  many  distinguished  writers,  whose  works  are  in  every 
reference  library,  and  some  of  them  the  companion  of  every  pas- 
tor in  his  study. 

To  attempt  to  sketch  these  views,  set  forth  often  in  extended 
monographs,  would  be  impossible  and  useless,  especially  as  this 
sketch  is  not  intended  for  the  defense  of  imperilled  orthodoxy. 
The  historic  interest  may  be  best  served  by  noting  chiefly  the 
(/,  viations  from  generally  received  opinions,  among  writers  and 
scholars  of  varying  schools  of  thought. 

1.  Foley. 

This  divine  (f  1S05)  says:  "The  doctrines  came  to  the  apostles 
by  revelation.  They  were  wont  to  illustrate,  support  and  enforce 
them  by  such  analogies,  arguments  and  considerations  as  their 
own  thoughts  suggested. 

"The  doctrine  tnusl  be  received,  but  it  is  not  necessary,  in  order 
to  defend  Christianity,  to  maintain  the  propriety  of  cvrvy  com- 
parison, or   the    validity  of  rwry  argument    which    an    apostle    lias 

brought  into  the  discussion."  ' 


1  EhricU  nces  of  Christianity,  Pt.  Ill:  ch.  2. 


\\    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY.  89 

2.  Priestly. 

Dr.  Priestly  (f  1808)  holds  us  bound  to  consider  the  great 
truths  nttered  by  the  apostles  as  from  God  -divine,  and  worthy 
of  the  highest  regard.  1 1  <  -  judges  us  uol  bound,  however,  to 
accord  like  faith  to  the  minutiae  of  what  they  mention,  aor  to 
their  arguments  and  reasonings  either  from  fact:-  <>r  revealed 
doctrines. 

3.  Heber. 

Bishop  Heber  t f  L826)  declares'  thai  'mistakes  in  points  where 
inspiration  docs  not  properly  apply,  can  by  no  means  derogate 
from  the  inspired  character  of  a  work,  in  those  respects  where 
inspiration  is  either  needed  or  promised.'  He  also  says  that  'cir- 
cumstances which,  whether  true  or  false,  have  no  positive  bearing 
on  the  doctrine  or  character  of  Christ,  may  belong  indeed  to  Ins 
history,  but  are  no  essential  parts  of  the  gospel.'  The  bishop 
insists  that  the  words  of  Christ  are  reported  by  the  evangelists 
with  supernatural  and  infallible  authority. 

4.  Parry. 

Win.  Parry  (I  L818)  endeavored  to  prove  that  there  was 
no  necessity  for  inspiration  or  immediate  divine  suggestion  of 
what  the  apostles  knew  already,  either  from  the  discourses  of 
Christ  or  their  own  observation.  The  Holy  Spirit  taught  them 
all  things  respecting  Christianity,  of  which  they  wen-  not  previ- 
ously in  possession— the  whole  of  that  religious  truth  which  it- 
was  necessary  for  them  to  teach,  or  for  men  to  know.  Since  he 
preserved  them  from  all  error  in  what  they  taught  and  recorded, 
the  same  result  is  secured  as  though  he  had  dictated  every  syllable 
of  their  writings.  If  they  had  heen  mere  machines  under  his 
direction,  they  could  in  no  case  have  given  to  men  more  than  a 
perfect  rvJU  as  to  all  religious  opinions  and  duties,  all  matters  of 
faith  and  practice.  But  such  a  perfect  rule  we  have  in  the  New 
Testament,  if  we  consider  the  writers  as  under  the  Spirit's  infalli- 
ble guidance  in  all  the  religious  Bentimente  they  express,  whether 
he  suggested  the  very  words  in  which  they  are  written  or  not.1 


1  Bampton  Lectures  {IBIS),  pp.  :'>ni  9. 

•'  Inquiry  into  the  Nature  and  Sxtt  ni  of  (hi  Inspiration  of  the  Apoatlea,  &c. 


90  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION: 

5.  Coleridge. 

It  was  Coleridge  (f  L834  |,  perhaps,  more  than  any  one  else,  who 
really  domesticated  in  England,  and  pnt  in  permanent  circulation 
there,  views  on  the  subject  of  inspiration  hitherto  current  chiefly 
in  Germany,  and  based  rather  upon  profound  acquaintance  with 
German  metaphysical  philosophy^  than  with  the  genuine  science  of 
Christian  theology.  The  theory  propounded  in  liis  'Confessions 
of  an  Inquiring  Spirit'1  is  known  sometimes  as  the  ' subjecti/vef 
and  again  as  one  form  of  the  ' partiaV  theory.  Ileal ly  it  is  both 
subjective  and  partial. 

a.  lie  distinguishes  carefully  i/rn/mediate  di/oine  revelation,  con- 
tained in  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  (and  of  course  absolutely 
infallible),  from  inspiration,  or  the  actuation  and  assistance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  vouchsafed  to  the  authors  of  other  parts  of  Scripture. 
The  latter  is  only  the  'highest  degree  of  that  grace  and  commun- 
ion of  the  Spirit,  which  the  church  under  all  circumstances,  and 
every  regenerate  member  of  the  church,  is  permitted  to  hope  and 
instructed  to  pray  for.'  In  other  words,  supernatural  inspiration, 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  belongs  only  to  the  Law  and  the 
Prop]  lets. 

1).  Consistently  with  his  view,  Coleridge  admits  errors  and 
discrepancies  in  those  matters  which  'stand  in  no  necessary  con- 
nection with  the  known  and  especial  ends  and  purposes  of  the 
Scriptures.' 

c.  He  bases  his  belief  in  the  divinity  of  the  Scriptures,  chiefly 
upon  the  testimony  of  inward  personal  experience.  '  Whatever 
jmd&  me,  bears  witness  for  itself  that  it  has  proceeded  from  a 
Holy  Spirit.' 

Some  younger  friends  and  followers  of  Coleridge  abandoned 
his  careful  distinction  between  revelation  and  inspiration,  wholly 
displaced  the  supernatural  element  from  the  Bible,  and  ascribed 
to  it  only  such  inspiration  as  is  common  to  all  believers. 

6.  Arnold. 

One  of  the  pupils  of  Thos.  Arnold  (f  L842)  asserts  that  he  had 
no    accurate,    precise,  and    sharply  defined    view    of   inspiration." 


i  Works,  Vol.  V:5G9ff. 

8  B.  Price,  in  Stanley's  Life  of  Arnold,  L97. 


AN   OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    BTUDY.  '.'I 

This  may  be  true,  and  yet  it  may  not  be  difficult  to  form  reason- 
ably distinct  impressions  as  to  bis  general  ideas.  According  to 
the  same  authority,  he  found  and  acknowledged  in  the  Bible  an 
oracle  from  God,  a  positive  and  supernatural  revelation  made  to 

man,  an  i Lediate  inspiration  of  the  Spirit.1 

Manv  utterances  on  the  subject  of  inspiration  arc  found  in  bis 
'Sermons  on   the   Christian    Life:    Its  Course,   Hindrances  and 

Helps.'  Tims  be  says:  "Paul  had  the  Spirit  of  God  so  abun- 
dantly that  no  human  being  ever  enjoyed  a  Larger  share,"  and 
asks,  "Are  not  Ins  writings  most  trul\  to  !>«■  called  inspired?  ('an 
any  reasonable  mind  doubt  that  to  refuse  to  believe  his  testimony 
is  really  to  disbelieve  God  \n  ' 

While  Arnold  holds,  however,  that  the  Scriptures  are  divinely 
framed  and  superintended,  be  would  not  have  his  faith  depend  on 
the  accuracy  of  a  date  or  a  minute  historical  particular.1  He  calls 
it  an  unwarranted  interpretation  of  the  term  'inspiration,"  to 
believe  that  it  is  equivalent  to  a  communication  of  divine  perfec- 
tions/ In  whatever  points  errors  may  be  discernible  in  Scripture, 
either  it  does  not  concern  what  (tod  has  done  for  US,  or  what  we 
are  to  do  for  him;  or,  if  it  seems  to  do  so,  God  has  made  some 
provision  for  the  case,  to  remove  what  it  might  otherwise  have 
had  of  difficulty. 

The  following  utterances  will  convey  some  idea  of  Ins  views  as 
to  the  <.r/<  nt  of  the  divine  influence  upon  the  minds  of  the  sacred 
writers:  "  Inspiration  does  not  raise  a  man  above  his  own  time, 
or  make  him,  even  in  respect  to  that  which  he  utters  when 
inspired,  perfect  in  wisdom  and  goodness;  but  it  so  overrules  bis 
language  that  it  shall  contain  a  meaning  more  thai)  his  own  mind 
was  conscious  of,  and  thus,  give  to  it  a  character  of  divinity  and  a 
power  of  perpetual  application."' 

7.  Robertson. 

The  news  of  V.  W.  Robertson  (f  L853),  are  best  disclosed  in 
two  Letters,  Nos.  exxxix  and  cxl  of  his  "  Life  and  Letters."' 


1  Stanley,  Life  of  Arnold,  L97. 
':  Sh  i  mans,  p,  loo. 

■■  hi.  sea 

1  [d.  899. 

6  Sermon  on  Interpretation  of  Scripture,  ill,  Eng.  Ed. 

1  Harper's  Edition,  pp.  ;50G-7. 


I'li  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    INSPIRATION  : 

"The  prophetic  power,  in  which,  I  suppose,  is  chiefly  exhibited 
thai  which  we  mean  by  inspiration,  depends  almost  entirely  on 
moral  greatness.  Tin1  prophet  discussed  large  principles,  true  for 
nil  time — principles  social,  political,  ecclesiastical,  and  principles 
of  life,  chiefly  by  largeness  of  heart,  and  sympathy  of  spirit  with 
God's  Spirit.     That  is  my  conception  of  inspiration. 

"The  inspiration  of  the  Bible  is  a  large  subject.  I  hold  it  to 
be  inspired,  not  dictated.  It  is  the  word  of  God — the  word  of 
man:  as  the  former,  perfect ;  as  the  latter,  imperfect.  God  the 
Spirit,  as  the  Sanctiiier,  does  not  produce  absolute  perfection  of 
human  character;  God  the  Spirit,  as  an  [nspirer,  does  not  produce 
absolute  perfection  of  human  knowledge;  and  for  the  same  reason 
in  both  cases, — the  human  element  which  is  mixed  up — else  there 
could  have  been  no  progressive  dispensations. 

"I  hold  it,  therefore,  as  a  proof  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible, 
and  divinely  wise,  to  have  given  a  spiritual  revelation,  i.e.,  a  reve- 
lation concerning  the  truths  of  the  soul  and  its  relation  to  God, 
in  popular  and  incorrect  language.  Do  not  mistake  that  word 
mcorrect;  incorrect  is  one  thing,  false  another." 

8.   Hare. 

Archdeacon  J.  0.  Hare  (f  1855),  in  common  with  other  repre- 
sentatives <>f  the  Broad-church  school,  attributes  inspiration  to  the 
common  grace  of  God's  quickening  and  enlightening  Spirit, 
shared  by  the  sacred  writers  in  common  with  other  Christians, 
but  possessed  in  greater  measure.  His  general  view  is  expressed 
in  a  quotation  which  he  makes  approvingly  from  Aekerniann,  a 
( lerinan  theologian. 

"Theologians  have  not  infrequently  been  guilty  of  a  gross  error 
with  regard  to  the  biblical  idea  of  inspiration,  from  looking  upon 
it  as  mechanical  instead  of  dogmatical.  *  *  *  Hence  they 
ought  never  to  have  adopted  or  encouraged  the  crude  notion  that 
persons  under  inspiration  were  like  so  many  drawers,  wherein 
the  ilolv  Ghost  put  such  and  such  things,  which  they  then  took 
out  as  something  ready-made,  and  laid  before  the  world,  so  thai 
their  recipiency  with  reference'  to  the  Spirit  inspiring  them  was 
like  that  of  a  letter  box.  Whereas,  inspiration,  according  to  the 
Bible,  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  vivifying  and  animating  operation  on 
the  spiritual  faculty  in  man,  by  which  its  energy  and  capacity  are 
extraordinarily  heightened,  so  that  his  powers  of  internal  percep- 


AN    OUTLINE    BI8TOBIOAL    BTUDT.  ,.,:>. 

rioii  discern  things  spread  oul  before  them  clearly  and  distinctly, 
which  at  other  timrs  lay  beyond  his  range  of  vision,  and  were 
dark  and  hidden."  ' 

'.».   Mawrice. 

The  views  of  Maurice  (f  L872)  on  the  question  of  inspiration 
were  determined  partly  by  his  own  subjective  tendency  and 
mystical  turn  of  mind,  and  partly  by  his  unbounded  admiration 
for  Coleridge,  and  the  readiness  with  which  lie  yielded  to  the 
formative  influence  of  that  profound  thinker. 

The  nature  of  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  minds 
of  the  sacred  writers  was,  in  his  opinion,  essentially  the  same  in 
character  with  that  en  joyed  by  Christian  believers  of  the  present 
•  lay.  Thus  lie  says  explicitly:  "We  must  forego  the  demand 
which  we  make  on  the  conscience  of  young  men.  when  we  compel 
them  to  declare  that  they  regard  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  as 
generically  unlike  that  which  God  bestows  on  his  children  in  this 
day.'"'  He  also  denounces  the  common  and  orthodox  course  of 
setting  up  the  Bible  as  a  hook  which  incloses  all  that  may  lawfully 
he  called  inspiration,  and  predicts  that  it  will  lead  to  a  genera] 
alienation  from  the  sacred  records,  and  a  wide-spread  unbelief  in 
( 'hristianity. 

111.    St, i„ I,;/. 

The  late  Dean  of  Westminster  (f  L881)  has  usually  been 
regarded  as  a  typical  representative  of  the  Broad-church  school 
of  English  theology.  His  later  writings,  bowever,  would  seem  to 
indicate  somewhat  extreme  negative  opinions.  The  first  difficulty 
is,  that  his  positions  are  implied  rather  than  explicitly  stated  in 
his  writings.  One  may  feel  a  reasonable  confidence  of  under- 
standing him,  and  yet  hesitate  to  attempt  the  formulation  of  his 
theory.  For  a  long  time  his  views  in  biblical  criticism  were 
tacitly  associated  with  those  of  Colenso;  his  more  recent  attitude. 
however,  has  been  identified   with  that  of  Mr.  Robertson  Smith. 

though  high  official  station  in  the  church  may  have  dictated 
caution  in  avowine  it.     Some  of  his  warmest  admirers  have  lately 


1  Mission  of  tin  Comforter,  I:  500. 

-  I'h, wlogical  Essays,  McMUlau,  is:,;;,  p.  839. 

:1  Id..  848. 


94  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   INSPIRATION: 

declared  it  impossible  to  tell  from  his  published  writings,  whether 
.lie  had  any  faith  in  the  supernatural  or  not.  One  has  bluntly 
asserted  that  'he  did  not  credit  the  miraculous  history  of  Jesus 
Christ  himself.' 

11.  Jowett. 

Mr.  Benjamin  Jowett  sets  forth  his  views  on  the  question  of 
inspiration  in  the  appendix  of  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans.  Unfortunately  for  the  writer,  this  book  is  not  now 
at  hand.  An  approximate  idea  of  his  position,  however,  may  be 
gathered  from  his  miscellaneous  theological  essays,  which  are  easily 
accessible.  In  one,1  after  enumerating  various  opinions  enter- 
tained, he  says:  "There  is  no  foundation  for  any  of  the  higher 
or  supernatural  views  of  inspiration  in  the  gospels  or  epistles. 
Apostolic  writings  nowhere  lead  us  to  suppose  that  their  authors 
were  free  from  errors  or  infirmity." 

It  is  quite  in  keeping  with  this  utterance,  that  he  should  see 
imperfect  or  opposite  aspects  in  different  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, variations  of  fact  in  the  gospels,  and  inaccuracies  of  thought 
and  language  in  the  writings  of  Paul. 

We  now  come  to  a  group  of  writers,  of  orthodox  instincts,  and 
generally  reputed  soundness  on  tins  especial  question,  who  have, 
however,  this  more  particularly  in  common,  that  they  admit  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  inspiration  in  the  sacred  records.  In  so  doing, 
they  follow  the  example  of  Lowth,  Whitby,  Doddridge  and  others. 

L2.  J.  Pye  Smith. 

Dr.  Smith  (f  1851)  speaks  first  for  a  careful  distinction  of  rev- 
elation from  inspiration.  The  former  he  makes  to  be  the  'commu- 
nication of  knowledge  not  otherwise  attainable,  by  immediate 
divine  influence  on  the  human  mind."  The  latter  consists  in 
'qualifying  the  recipient  of  revelation  to  communicate  the  revealed 
knowledge  to  his  fellow-creatures  with  perfect  certainty  and 
accuracy.' '"' 

Inspiration  may  exist  without  revelation,  as  when  one  by  divine 
appointment  faithfully  transmits  to  others  information  previously 


1  Essay  on  Interpretation  of  Scripture.     Emii/.s  mid  Reviews,  380. 
8  Scrip.  I'tstiiu.  In  Messiah)  I:  24. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTOBIGAL    BTUDY.  95 

gained  through  any  of  the  providentially  appointed  means  of 
acquiring  it.' 

Among  the  author's  conclusions  regarding  Holy  Scripture  are: 

a.  That  evidence  does  aot  warrant  the  belief  that  all  part,-  of  the 
( )ld  Testamenl  were  immediately  dictated  by  the  1 1 <  >  1  \  Spirit,  and 

possess  tlif  same  kind  of  inspiration.3 

b.  Different  subjects  require  different  kinds  or  degrees  of 
inspiration.  A  historian,  relating  what  he  Learned  from  various 
trustworthy  sources,  would  need  divine   influences  of  a  different 

nature  from  those  required  to  enable  one  to  penetrate  into  future 
ages,  or  declare  the  hitherto  secrel  counsels  of  the  Deity.  There 
must    he   revelation    in    the    one    ease,  while  in    the  other    it    was 

sufficient  if  the  writer  was  directed  to  the  proper  use  of  materials, 
and  was  preserved  from  mistake  and  misrepresentation.' 

e.  It  was  consistenl  with  complete  inspiration  that  the  writers 
should  he  left  to  the  free  exercise  of  their  own  mental  powers  in 
the  use  of  words,  phrases  and  manner.  Individual  peculiarities 
would  he  preserved,  hut  the  matter  would  he  of  divine  and  infal- 
lible truth.4 

Dr.  Smith  held,  however,  that  when  occasion  required  the 
divine  suggestion  of  words  or  clauses,  then  miraculous  intervention 
took  place.' 

I::.    Wilson. 

Daniel  Wilson,  bishop  of  Calcutta  (f  L858),  conceded  both  di- 
vine and  human  agency  in  the  formation  of  the  Scriptures,  the 
plenary  influence  <>l  the  Almighty  Spirit,  and  yet  the  free  exercise 

of    the   characteristic    faculties   of    the  writers." 

He  sums  up  his  idea  of  the  natun  of  inspiration  as  follows: 
"  We  attribute  such  an  inspiration  to  the  minds  of  the  sacred 
writers  as  exempted  them  from  all  error  whatever  in  the  commu- 
nication of  the  divine  will,  ami  gave  to  every  part  of  their 
declarations  its  full  sanction  as  the  infallible  word  of  God;  and  at 


1  Script.  Test,  dte.,  I:  24. 

■•Id.,  87. 

"Id.,  <;t. 

i  Id.  Lb. 

■1.1..  59. 

''•  ttridtmrs  of  Vlirhtimtity,  Vol.  I.  Led.  XIII,  p.  319. 


96  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    INSPIRATION: 

the  same  time,  allowed  to  each  writer  the  free  exercise  of  all  liis 
natural  powers,  and  the  delivery  of  the  divine  revelation  according 
to  his  own  lial>its  and  associations."1 

As  tn  the  extent  of  inspiration,  he  distinguished  four  degrees 
or  kinds. 

a.  That  of  suggest/Ion — including  such  communications  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  suggested  and  dictated  minutely  every  part  of  the 
truths  delivered.  ■ 

b.  That  of  di/rect/ion — or  such  assistance  as  left  the  writers  to 
describe  the  matter  revealed  in  their  own  way,  directing  only  the 
mind  in  the  exercise  of  its  powers. 

c.  That  of  elevation — adding  a  greater  strength  and  yigor  to 
the  efforts  of  the  mind  than  the  writers  could  otherwise  have 
attained. 

d.  That  id'  .sujh /''mil ihI< sncy — or  the  watchful  care  which  pre- 
served generally  from  anything  being  put  down,  derogatory  to  the 
revelation  with  which  it  was  connected." 

This  lowest  kind,  being  always  operative  in  the  minds  of  the 
sacred  writers,  is  carefully  defined  as  to  its  sphere.  Bishop  Wilson 
concludes  that  it  reached  even  to  the  least  circumstances  and  most 
casual  allusions  of  the  sacred  writers,  in  the  proportion  which  each 
bore  to  the  revelation  itself." 

14.    /A  /"/'  V80n. 

The  well  known  work  of  Dr.  Henderson  needs  little  further 
reference  than  the  notice  of  his  five-fold  distinction  of  degrees  in 
inspiration,  viz.'.  those  of  di/vim  excitement,  m/uigoration,  sv/perwr 
tendence,  guidance,  and  direct  revelation. 

lie  held  that  the  part  taken  by  the  Holy  Spirit  was  confined  to 
that  which  was  necessary  to  make  a,  divinely  authoritative  record  ; 
all  tin.'  rest  was  left  to  men,  e.  g.  the  use  of  historical  material  and 
the  choice  of  words. 

Though  objecting  thus  to  verbal  inspiration,  Dr.  Henderson 
says  there  is  no  material  difference  between  himself  and  advocates 
of  the  opposite  view,  as  he  holds  the  sacred  writers  to  have  been 
'always  secured  by  celestial  influence  against  the  adoption  of  any 


1  Evidences  of  Christianity,  Vol.  I,  Lect.  XIII:  321. 
-Id.,  323. 
s  Id.,  :;•-'.-,. 


AN    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY.  u7 

forms  of  speech  or  collocations  of  words  that  would  have  injured 
the  exhibition  of  divine  truth,  or  that  did  not  adequately  give  it 
expression." 

15.   Browne. 

Among  the  latest  works  written  from  this  point  of  view,  is  that 
of  Walter  \l.  Browne  on  kThe  Inspiration  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment.' 'J 

This  author  distinguishes  three  distinct  states  of  inspiration  in 
the  writer-  of  Scripture,  as  follows: 

a.  "  Direct  Inspiration,  when  the  writer  is  merely  transcribing 
a  revelation  from  God,  made  immediately  to  himself;  and  even  in 
the  transcription  has  a  supernatural  power  working  in  and  con- 
trolling him. 

1).  Indirect  Inspiration,  when  the  same  controlling  power  oper- 
ates, but  when  the  matter  recorded,  although  supernatural,  is 
known  to  the  writer,  mainly  at  least,  by  the  ordinary  channels  of 
information.  This  matter  may  be  either  supernatural  words  (as  in 
the  case  of  Christ's  discourses  given  in  the  gospels),  or  else  merely 
supernatural  deeds,  or  arrangements;  and  the  extent  and  nature 
of  the  controlling  power  will  he  different  in  these  different  <•;  9es. 

To  distinguish  classes  (a)  and  (b),  we  may  say  briefly  that  the 
writer  is  in  the  first  a  messenger,  in  the  second,  a  historian. 

c.  Preventive  Inspiration,  when  the  matters  are  wholly  within 
the  writer's  knowledge,  and  at  the  same  time  of  no  immediate 
supernatural  import,  being  in  general  a  mere  filling  in  of  details. 

Here  the  writer  will  simply  he  left  to  himself,  to  tell  his  story  in 
his  own  way;  and  the  only  work  of  inspiration  will  he  to  prevent 
the  introduction  of  any  serious  error,  such  as  could  not  be  detected 
by  the  readers  of  later  generations,  and  mighl  produce  evil  result.-.'"1 

Compare  also  on  Degrees  in  Inspiration. 

Hill,  Lectures  on  Divinity,  p.  156. 

Dick.  Essay  on  Inspiration,  p.  8;  also  Lects.  "u  Theol.,  I:  115. 

Some  general  similarity  of  new,  at  least  upon  the  question  en- 
gaging our  attention,  may  he  detected  in  the  writings  of  the  sev- 
eral divines  now  to  he  mentioned. 


I  Divine  Inspiration, 

»C.  Keegan  PaulA  ('<>.,  London,  1880. 

II  Inspiration  of  flu  ZV<  to  I\  riamt  nfy  pp.  1 1 1  :>. 

18 


98  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    inspiration  : 

16.  Conybeare. 

W.  I>.  Conybeare  (t  L857),  held  with  reference  to — 
a.  The  natv/re  of  inspiration — that  the  influence  of  the  divine 
Spirit  bo  guided  and  guarded  the  sacred  writers  as  to  suggest  all 
essentia]  and  appropriate  truth,  and  to  preserve  from  all  error. 
He  rejected  the  notion  of  degrees  in  inspiration,  as  unnecessary, 
and  unsupported  by  facts. 

1).  The  c.iioit  of  inspiration — that  the  divine  influence  extended 
not  to  verbal  expression,  but  only  to  the  securing  of  a  certain  and 
infallible  standard  of  religious  truth,  from  which  there  conld  be 
no  appeal.  In  points  not  concerning  this,  guidance  was  not  needed 
nor  imparted.  Conybeare,  for  example,  doubts  if  inspiration  ex- 
tended to  all  of  Paul's  allusions  to  Jewish  chronology.  lie 
strenuously  insists,  however,  that  in  matters  bearing  in  any  way 
upon  religion,  no  such  allowances  can  be  made.1 

17.  Alford. 

The  late  Dean  Alford  (f  1871)  entertained  very  decided  opin- 
ions upon  the  question  of  inspiration,  which  he  sets  forth  in  the 
Introduction  to  his  Greek  Testament,  and  incidentally  brings  out 
with  great  clearness  in  the  body  of  the  Commentary. 

He  says  that  inspiration  did  not  make  of  the  sacred  writers 
mere  channels  for  the  transmission  of  infallible  truth.  The 
working  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  them  was  analogous  to  his  influence 
on  every  believer  in  Christ,  viz.,  in  the  retention  of  individual 
character,  thought  and  feeling,  and  in  the  gradual  development 
of  the  ways  and  purposes  of  God  in  their  minds.  As  their 
situation  and  office  was  peculiar  and  unexampled,  so  for  its  ful- 
fillment peculiar  and  unexampled  gifts  were  bestowed  upon  them. 
One  of  these,  in  the  case  of  the  apostles,  was  the  recalling  to 
their  minds  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  those  things  which  our  Lord 
had  said.4 

Our  author  contends  that  divine  superintendence,  as  exercised 
in  the  composition  of  the  gospels,  extended  no  farther  than  that 
general  leading,  which,  in  main  and  essential  points,  ensured  har- 
mony between  the  writers,  lie  is  strong  in  the  conviction  that 
the    phenomena    of    the  gospels  are    inconsistent   with    the   strict 


1  Lects.  on  T/tcolt>f/y,  London,  1836. 

2  Proleg.  Greek  Test.,  Ch.  I,  §  VI:  8. 


A.V    on  LINE    HISTORICAL    BTTTDY.  99 

verbal  theory.  He  admits  actual  discrepancies  In  the  evangelic 
narrative,  and  yet  declares  for  'plenary  inspiration,1  properly 
understood  and  defined.1 

His  precise  view  of  the  nature  of  inspiration  is  contained  in 
the  following  utterance:  "The  inspiration  of  the  sacred  writer.-,  I 
believe  to  have  consisted  in  the  fulness  of  the  influence  of  the 
BColy  Spirit,  specially  raising  them  to,  and  enabling  them  for, 
their  work, — in  a  manner  which  distinguishes  them  from  nil 
other  writers  in  tin  worlds  and  their  work  from  all  other  works."' 

18.  Browne. 

Bishop  Harold  Browne  contributed  an  essay  on  inspiration  to 
the  volume  entitled  "Aids  to  Faith,"  written  in  reply  to  "Essays 
and  Reviews." 

He  holds  that  definite  theories  of  inspiration  are  doubtful  and 
dangerous,  for  the  reason  that  while  there  are  clearly  both  divine 
ami  human  elements  in  the  complex  product  going  by  this  name, 
it  is  difficult  to  define  the  exact  relation  of  the  two." 

The  human  side  of  the  Bible  comes  out  in  the  different  styles 
of  the  writers,  and  in  apparent  slight  discrepancies  in  stating 
matters  of  detail.  The  few  unimportant  divergences  which  occur 
are  of  great  apologetic  value,  as  proving  among  other  things  the 
independence  of  the  writers.4 

The  i/iri/,'  side  of  the  Scriptures,  or  the  genuine  supernatural 
element,  appeals  in  infallible  foreknowledge  and  actual  predic- 
tions of  future  events,  i.  e.  in  j>r<ij>/n ,-//." 

This  undeniable  fact  differentiates  biblical  inspiration  from  that 
of  mere  genius.  It  cannot  he  explained  on  the  principle  of  the 
simple  exaltation  of  intuitional    consciousness"  (see  Morell  below), 

hut  proves  an  actual  communication  of  the  divine  will  to  man- 
kind, through  the  prophetic  and  other  hooks  of  the  (  Md  Testament 
as  channels. 

What  holds  good  of  the  Old  Testament,  holds  good  also  afor- 
tiori  of  the  Now;  for  no  one  could  contend  that  the  apostles — 

1  Prolog.  07.  Test.,  Ch.  I.  §  VI:  21. 
•  Id.,  lb. 

I  da  to  Faith,  349. 
«  Id..  866. 
Id.,  357. 
•Id.,  869. 


100  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    INSPIRATION  I 

'with  Christ's  own  mission,  with  the  gift  of  tongues  and  miracu- 
lous powers,  with  the  special  promises  of  the  Comforter  and 
guidance  by  him  into  all  truth,  and  with  the  assurance  of  Christ's 
own  presence — were  in  a  worse  position,  or  more  liable  to  error 

than  the  prophets.' ' 

The  essential  thing  is  infallibility  in  things  pertaining  to  God 
and  religious  truth.  Yet  with  all  the  pains  and  ingenuity  which 
have  been  bestowed  upon  the  subject,  no  charge  of  error,  even  in 
matters  of  human  knowledge,  has  ever  yet  been  substantiated 
against  any  of  the  writers  of  the  Scriptures.2  If  the  case  had 
been  otherwise,  there  would  still  be  no  cause  for  disquietude,  so 
long  as  the  supernatural  element  was  such,  both  in  character  and 
extent,  as  to  secure  infallible  truth  in  things  divine. 

19.  Fa/rra/r. 

We  may  note  here  the  definition  of  inspiration  given  by  the 
learned  A.  S.  Farrar,  in  his  '  Critical 'History  of  Free  Thought :' 3 

"  Inspiration  is,  if  analyzed  psychologically,  probably  a  form  of 
the  '  reason  ; '  but,  if  viewed  theologically,  it  is  an  elevated  state 
of  this  faculty,  brought  about  by  the  miraculous  and  direct  opera- 
tion of  God's  Spirit :  so  that  in  this  view  it  differs  in  kind,  and 
not  merely  in  depth  from  human  genius." 4 

A  series  of  writers  holding  more  radical  opinions  now  demand 
our  notice. 

20.  Davidson. 

Dr.  S.  Davidson  asserts  that  inspiration  did  not  lift  man  above 
error.  It  did  not  confer  upon  the  sacred  writers  the  attribute  of 
infallibility.  They  were  still  peccable  men,  but,  possessing  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  remarkable  degree,  were  gifted  with  peculiar 
insight  into  his  mind. 

Their  own  subjectivity  mingled  with  and  formed  part  of  their 
inspiration.  We  take  Them  as  guides  to  faith  and  practice  gener- 
ally, without  adopting  all  that  they  propounded,  or  believing  that 
they  could  foretell  future  events." 

1  Aids  to  Faith,  359. 

2  Id.,  367. 

3  Bampton  Lccts.,  18G2. 
*  Id.  pp.  40,  47ii. 

■'  Tntrod.  to  New  Testament,  I:  14*-15. 


AX    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY.  1<»1 

21.    WiirriiKjInii. 

Geo.  Warrington  quotes  with  approval  in  his  treatise,1  Arnold's 
statement  thai  'the  facilities  of  an  inspired  man  are  left  in  their 
uatural  state,  except  bo  far  as  regards  the  especial  message  with 
which  he  is  charged.' 

Slimming  up  the  results  of   his  investigations  of   Scripture  facts 

and  phenomena,  he  declares, 

a.   [nspiration  does  not  extend  f<>  the  letter,  lmt   i>  confined  to 

the  spirit  of  the  Bible. 

1).  The  divine  Influence  does  uo1  extend  to  statements  regarded 
as  narratives  of  matters  of  fact,  hut  i.-  confined  t<>  spiritual  teach- 
in--,  the  question  of  personal  sentiments  being  left  undecided. 

c.  There  i>  n<>  reason  to  regard  any  portion  of  this  teaching  as 
uninspired,  even  when  colored  by  personal  or  historical  influences; 
there  is  rather  every  reason  to  regard  the  whole  as  inspired. 

-I'l.  Robertson  Smith. 

To  most  conservative  scholars  it  can  scarcely  Beem  le>^  than 
absurd  to  speak  of  a  theory  of  inspiration  as  held  by  Professor 
Robertson  Smith.  Yet  he  professes  to  have  such  a  theory,  and 
that  the  only  correct  one.  lie  declares  it  consistent  with  the 
Westminster  standards,  and  variant  only  from  their  traditional 
interpretation.  It  is  rather  incidentally  developed  than  explicitly 
stated  in  his  answer  to  the  libel  brought  against  him  in  due  course 
of  ecclesiastical  procedure,  and  in  his  volume,  '  The  (  Md  Testament 
in  the  Jewish  Church.'  It  can  really  be  deduced  only  from  a 
summary  of  the  results  of  his  destructive  work  upon  the  Jewish 
canon.      The  design   and  limits  of  this  article    forbid   the   attempt 

to  present  such  a  resumed 

A  few  apparently  clear  conclusions,  however,  may  lie  deduced. 
He  prof  esses  to  find  both  a  divine  and  a  human  element  in  the 
Bible.  The  latter^  the  larger  of  the  two,  furnishes  a  fair  field  for 
the  application  of  the  principles  of  historical  criticism.  It  is  not 
only  right,  hut  imperatively  necessary,  that  all  parts  of  the  Script- 
mo  wherein  this  element  i>  controlling,  he  subjected  to  precisely 
the  same  critical  te>i>  and  treatment  as  are  applied  to  literary 
works  iii  general.     Opinions  will  necessarily  vary  as  to  how  much 

can    remain  of  a    particular   passage  or  hook   after    Mr.  Smith   has 


1  Inspiration  of  the  Scripture*— Its  Limit*  ami  its  Effects. 


1<»2  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    IXSl'ruA TIOH  '. 

actually  proceeded  to  exercise  upon  it  the  critical  office.  Infalli- 
bility certainly  finds  no  province  here. 

The  dimru  clement  in  the  Scriptures  is  left  indefinite  as  to  the 
scope  of  its  application.  Apparently  no  more  is  conceded  than 
that  it  concerns  such  a  'knowledge  of  God  and  of  his  will  as  is 
necessary  to  salvation/  The  author  would  probably  make  it 
inclusive  simply  of  '  God's  commands,  threatenings  and  promises 
addressed  to  our  faith,  and  above  all,  of  the  gospel  offer  of  Christ 
to  us.'  The  ground  of  faith  in  the  divine  origin  and  character  of 
the  truths  contained  within  the  Scriptures  is  not  to  be  found  in 
any  external  testimonies  to  an  objective  revelation,  but  simply 
and  solely  in  the  subjective  convictions  of  personal  experience 
wrought  within  the  heart  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  This 
being  accepted,  it  is  hard  to  see  what  functions  yet  remain  to 
supernatural  inspiration. 

Better,  however,  than  any  attempted  analysis  of  the  views  of 
Prof.  Smith,  may  be  a  few  citations  from  his  latest  published 
works.     Thus  he  says  : 

"  The  persuasion  that  in  the  Bible  God  himself  speaks  words  of 
love  and  life  to  the  soul,  is  the  essence  of  the  Christian's  conviction 
as  to  the  truth  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures.1 

"  Of  this  I  am  sure  at  the  outset,  that  the  Bible  does  speak  to 
the  heart  of  man  in  words  that  can  come  only  from  God — that  no 
historical  research  can  deprive  me  of  this  conviction,  or  make  less 
precious  the  divine  utterances  that  speak  straight  to  the  heart. 

"  For  the  language  of  those  words  is  so  clear  that  no  re-ad- 
justment of  their  historical  setting  can  conceivably  change  the 
substance  of  them. 

"The  supreme  truths  which  speak  to  every  believing  heart,  the 
way  of  salvation,  which  is  the  same  in  all  ages,  the  clear  voice  of 
God's  love,  so  tender  and  personal  and  simple  that  a  child  can 
understand  it — these  are  things  which  must  abide  with  us,  and 
prove  themselves  mighty  from  age  to  age,  apart  from  all  scientific 
study.2 

"The  inspired  writers  were  so  led  by  the  Spirit  that  they 
perfectly  understood  and  perfectly  recorded  every  word  which 
God  spoke  to  their  hearts.3 


1  Old  Testament,  etc.,  p.  4. 

2  Id.,  p.  28. 
■■>  Id.,  p.  9. 


A.\    OUTLINE    HISTORICAL    STUDY.  L03 

"The  Bible  is  a  book  of  experimental  religion,  in  which  the 
converse  of  G-od  with  his  people  is  depicted  in  all  its  stages,  up 
to  the  full  and  abiding  manifestation  of  saving  love  in  the  person 

of  Jesus  Christ.     G-od  has  i essage  of  Love  to  the  believing 

soul,  which  the  Bible  does  not  set  forth."  ' 

These  utterances,  in  their  detached  form,  have  a  certain  sound 
and  savor  of  orthodoxy  ;  hut  it  remains  true,  nevertheless,  that  the 
views  <>\  Prof.  Smith,  as  actually  applied  to  the  canon,  are  subver- 
sive of  all  belief  in   inspiration,  at   least   in  the  sense  commonly 

understood    and    accepted    by    the   orthodox    consciousness   of   the 

church. 


The  next  group  of  writers  is,  if  possible,  still  more  strongly 
pronounced  in  its  expression  of  negative  views. 

23.   Mbrdl. 

Morel  1,  a  disciple  of  Schleiermacher,  and  essentially  at  one  with 
the  advanced  Broad-church  school  in  views  upon  our  subject, 
distinguishes  revelation  and  inspiration,  hut  regards  them  as  two 
different  .sides  of  one  divine  act.  The  former  is  an  exercise  of 
power  by  which  God  presents  the  realities  of  the  spiritual  world 
immediately  to  the  human  mind;  the  latter  is  that  especial  influ- 
ence wrought  in  the  mind  of  the  subject,  by  which  he  is  enabled  to 
grasp  those  realities  in  perfect  fulness  and  integrity.  God  made  a 
revelation  of  himself  to  the  world  in  Jesus  Christ,  but  it  was  the 
inspiration  of  the  apostles  which  enabled  them  clearly  to  discern 
it.3  The  result  of  the  two  is  to  produce  in  the  human  mind  a  state 
of  intuition,  whose  phenomena  are  so  extraordinary,  that  we  at 
once  separate  them  from  any  of  the  ordinary  principles  of  human 

development.     Vet  this  agency  is  applied  in  perfect  consistency 
with  the  law>  and  natural  operations  of  our  spiritual  nature. 

[nspiration  does  not  imply  anything  genericaUy  new  in  the 
actual  processes  of  the  human  mind;  it  does  not  involve  any  form 
of  intelligence  essentially  differenl  from  what  we  already  possess; 
it  indicates  rather  the  elevation  of  the  religious  consciousness,  and 
with  it.  of  course,  the  power  of  spiritual  vision  to  a  degree  of 
intensity  peculiar  to  the  individual  thus  highly  favored  by  <io<^' 

1  Old  Testament,  pp.  13-14. 

■'  Philosophy  of  Religion^  I4s;  A.ppleton'8  Edition. 

•  I.I.,  148. 


I'M  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    [N8PIBATTON '. 

Having  denied  to  the  sacred  writers  miraculous  powers,  verbal 
dictation  or  any  distinct  commission  to  their  wort  from  God,1  he 
proceeds  to  affirm  the  generic  resemblance  of  biblical  inspiration 
to  that  of  genius.  Genius  consists  in  the  possession  of  a  remark- 
able power  of  intuition  with  reference  to  some  particular  object, 
a  power  which  arises  from  the  inward  nature  of  a  man  being 
brought  into  unusual  harmony  with  that  object  in  its  reality  and 
its  operations.2 

The  difference  of  the  two  hinds  of  inspiration  lies  simply  in  the 
nature  of  the  objects  apprehended,  and  in  the  exciting  cause  of 
the  inward  mental  elevation  to  which  that  apprehension  is  due.3 

24.  MacNaught. 

This  author  carries  out  the  naturalistic  theory  to  its  farthest 
limits.  He  defines  inspiration  to  be  'that  action  of  the  divine 
Spirit  by  which,  apart  from  any  idea  of  infallibility,  all  that  is 
good  in  man,  beast  or  matter  is  originated  and  sustained.'4  There 
is  to  him  no  distinction  whatever  between  inspiration  and  genius. 
He  makes  no  question  that  David,  Solomon,  Isaiah,  or  Paul  would 
have  spoken  of  everything  which  may  with  propriety  be  called  a 
work  of  genius,  or  of  cleverness,  or  of  holiness,  as  works  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  written  by  divine  inspiration.6 

Every  thing  good  in  any  person  or  thing  is  inspired,  and  the 
value  of  any  book  claiming  the  quality  of  inspiration  depends 
upon  the  amount  actually  exhibited,  and  the  importance  of  the 
truths  it  teaches.  Milton,  Shakspeare,  Bacon,  Canticles,  the  Apoc- 
alypse, the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  the  eighth  chapter  of 
Romans  are  all  inspired;  but  which  of  them  is  the  most  valuable, 
and  therefore  most  truly  inspired,  is  to  be  determined  by  consid- 
eration of  its  character,  tendency,  and  beneficial  effects  as  seen 
in  its  history."  As  above  indicated,  Mr.  MacNaught  discovers 
inspiration  in  rational  and  irrational  creatures,  in  matter  organic 
and  inorganic.     He  finds  it  in  the  instinct  of  the  owl,  hears  it  in 


1  Philos.  ofBdig.,  159. 

"Id.  173. 

■''  Hodge,  8yat.  Theol.,  I:  17G. 

1  Doi-iriiu  of  Inspiration,  196. 

•r>  Id.  192. 

f'  Id.  ib 


AN    OUTLINE    HI8TOBICSAL    STUDY.  L05 

tin-  rushing  of  the  wind,  and  sees  it  in  the  springing  of  the  blade 
of  grass. 

He  is  able  also  to  argue,  to  his  owe  mind  conclusively,  from 
thr  lack  of  infallibility  in  these  acts  and  phenomena  of  nature,  to 
a  similar  want  of  Infallibility  in  the  writings  of  inspired  men. 

25.   \<  wmem. 

No  further  statement  will  be  needful  as  to  Mr.  F.  W.  Newman's 
views  concerning  inspiration  than  to  refer  to  his  volume,  'Phases 
of  Faith,'  especially  chaps,  rv.  fiE.  rriiis  gentleman  has  made  the 
discovery  that  ka  book  revelation  is  a  contradiction  in  terms',  that 
an  "authoritative  external  revelation  of  moral  and  spiritual  truth 
is  essentially  impossible  to  man;  and  that  what  God  reveals  to  us, 
he  reveals  within,  through  the  medium  of  our  moral  and  spiritual 
senses.' ' 

It  would  certainly  he  a  sudden  and  violent  transition,  were  we 
to  pass  from  the  extreme  rationalism  of  such  writers  as  have  last 
engaged  our  attention,  to  a  detailed  consideration  of  the  reaction- 
ary orthodoxy  of  writers  like  Ilaldane,  Uaniieruian  and  others. 
We  shall  content  ourselves  with  a  simple  reference  to  their 
treatises  : 

Ilaldane — >v  Verbal  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures." 
Bannerman — "Inspiration  of  th<   //<>/;/  Scriptures." 
Klliott     "Inspiration  qftfu   HoJ/y Scriptures"  (more  mock-rate). 
Given — "JRevelation,  Inspiration,  a/ndthe  Canon." 

VII.     Greek  and  Roman  Catholic  Churches. 

Our  historical  sketch  may  properly  conclude  with  a  reference 
to  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  as  held  by  the  modern  Greet  and 
Roman  Catholic  churches.  For  the  views  of  various  Protest- 
ant bodies  on  the  subject,  it  will  he  sufficient  to  refer  to  the 
denominational  literatures,  in  general,  easily  accessible. 

1 .   Tin  Greek  t  ihurch. 

Questions  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  inspiration  are  hardly 
known  as  subjects  of  discussion  here.     All  are  content  with  the 


1  The  Soul,  p.  50. 
US 


106  THE    DOCTRINE   OF    INSPIRATION  '. 

statement  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  author  and  communicator  of 
Scripture,  and  that  the  prophets  and  apostles  are  the  media 
through  which  that  communication  is  made  to  men.1 

2.   The  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

The  Catholic  doctrine  of  inspiration  has  been  recently  set  forth 
I  iy  Archbishop  Gibbons,' and  his  statements  maybe  accepted  as 
sufficiently  authoritative. 

The  Vatican  Council  declared  :  "  The  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  are  to  be  received  as  sacred  and  canonical,  *  *  * 
because,  having  been  written  by  inspiration  of  God,  they  have  God 
for  their  author,  and  have  been  handed  down  to  the  Church  her- 
self as  such." 

Catholic  theologians  in  answer  to  the  question  'What  is  inspira- 
tion?'3 would  define  it  as  'a  supernatural  help  whereby  God,  at 
various  times  down  to  the  end  of  the  apostolic  age,  enlightened 
the  minds  of  certain  men  that  they  might  know  the  truths  which 
he  wished  to  deliver  in  writing  to  his  church,  and  moved  their 
will  to  write  them  and  nothing  else.' 

As  the  Bible  is  not  written  to  teach  science,  the  sacred  writers 
use  the  language  of  their  time.  We  must  not  look  in  the  Bible 
for  what  passes  for  scientific  accuracy  in  the  nineteenth  century. 
Still  Catholics  hold  that,  rightly  interpreted,  the  Bible  is  not  only 
infallible  in  what  concerns  faith  and  morals,  but  that,  moreover,  it 
contains  no  historical  misstatement  or  error  about  physical  facts.4 


K.  GENERAL  CONCLUSIONS  FROM  THE  WHOLE 

SURVEY. 

If  now  we  ask  what  general  conclusions  may  be  safely  and 
legitimately  drawn  from  that  T/wi/ited  provmoe  of  the  historical 
doctrine  of  inspiration  which  we  have  surveyed,  it  may  be  replied : 

I.  Inspiration,  in  the  sense  of  a  communication  of  the  divine 
will    to   men    through    chosen    messengers,    has   been  matter  of 


1  Bib.  Sac.,  Oct.,  1864,  p.  821. 

2  North  American  Review,  1878,  pp.  324  ff. 

3  Id.,  p.  326. 
*Id.,  p.  327. 


AN   OUTLINE    historical    STUDY.  I'"! 

general  belief  among  heathei]  and  Christians,  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
in  every  age.  It  readily  responds  to  the  triple  test  of  Catholicity, 
viz.,  acceptance  "semper,  ubiqne,  ab  omnibus." 

II.  Theories  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  biblical  inspiration 
should  be  always,  and  in  greai  measure  have  actually  been,  broadly 
distinguished  from  the  fact  itself.  Unanimity  with  reference  to 
the  latter  Is  the  more  abundantly  proved  by  the  comparative 
absence  of  dogmatic  speculations  upou  the  former,  during  the 
lir-t  fifteen  centuries  of  the  history  of  the  church. 

III.  Abandoning  the  common,  but  really  useless  attempt  at  a 
rigid  classification  of  tin-  various  theories  of  inspiration,  we  may 
vet  say  with  confidence  that  no  single  one  has  ever  commanded 
sullicieiitly  general  assent  to  entitle  it  to  rank  (as  party  zealots 
would  have  it)  as  'the  immemorial  doctrine  of  the  church  of  God.1 

IV.  History  furnishes  conclusive  evidence  that  no  doctrine  of 
inspiration  can  hope  for  general  acceptance  in  the  church,  which 
fails  to  accord  full  recognition  to  the  co-existence,  co-activity  and 
harmonious  relation  of  the  two  factors — divine  and  human — in 
the  same. 

All  efforts  wholly  to  displace,  or  unduly  to  exalt  the  one  or  the 
other,  will  be  met  by  a  more  or  less  prompt,  and  certainly  a  strong 
reaction  against  the  sole  supremacy  of  this,  and  a  like  re-assertion 
of  the  factor  which  is  denied  or  undervalued.  The  doctrine  in 
it-  historical  development  has  given  evidence  of  a  kind  of  self- 
corrective  power,  which,  in  the  long  run  at  least,  is  sure  to  make 
its  presence  and  efficient  operation  manifest. 

V.  If  the  truth  of  the  foregoing  statement  be  conceded,  it  is 
plain  that  the  doctrine  of  inspiration,  properly  so  called,  can  have 
nothing  to  fear  from  the  attacks  of  modern  biblical  criticism,  be 
they  tho-e  of  avowed  rationalism,  of  pseudo-evangelicalism,  (whose 
loud    professions  of  allegiance    to    confessional    standards   scarcely 

suffice  to  conceal  its  really  negative  spirit  and  intent),  or  of  reac- 
tionary orthodoxy  and  bigotry. 

The  trend  of  opinion  at  the  present  day  is,  as  seen  above,  toward 
a  fuller  recognition  of  the  human  element  in  the  Scriptures;  and 
bold  assertions  are   made   of  errors  manifold    in   fact,  and  even  in 

doctrine  (which  in  a  historic  revelation  like  the  Bible  arises  out  of 

fact  i.  but  it  is  to  be  rememered  on  the  other  hand  : 

1.   Thai  scepticism  in  e\ery  age,  thus  far,  has  found,  as  concern- 


[08  THE    DOCTRINE   OF   INSPIRATION  : 

ing  attacks  upon  the  Scriptures,  that  assertion  was  one  thing, 
but  proof  and  carrying  of  general  conviction  quite  another. 

2.  That  its  assaults  have  uniformly  resulted  in  establishing  the 
truth  denied,  upon  a  more  solid  basis  than  before,  and,  by  clearing 
it  from  misapprehension  and  ambiguity,  in  securing  for  it  more 
complete  and  symmetrical  development  than  would  otherwise 
have  been  possible. 

If  the  outcome  of  present  controversies  should  prove  different, 
it  would  indeed  be  'a  new  thing  under  the  sun.' 

It  is  matter  of  fact  that  to-day,  as  the  result  of  the  very  criti- 
cism which  is  viewed  iu  so  many  quarters  with  alarm,  and  pend- 
ing the  solution  of  many  difficult  and  disputed  questions,  the 
general  fabric  of  the  Scriptures,  'apart  from  the  question  of 
its  inspiration,  stands  on  a  firmer  footing  than  it  did  a  century 
ago.'     This,  by  the  unwilling  confession  of  rationalism  itself. 

Surely  then,  simple-hearted  faith  in  the  divine  oracles  may  well 
rest  quietly,  thank  God  for  that  'wdiereto  it  has  already  attained,' 
and  take  courage  for  the  future. 

MISCELLANEOUS    WORKS    ON    THE    SUBJECT    OF    INSPIRATION  : 

Curtis,  Human  Element  in  the  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.     Appletons,  18G7. 
Lewis,  Divine-Human  in  the  Scriptures.     Carter  &  Bros.,  1860. 
Jamieson,  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.     Edinburgh,  W.  Blackwood  & 
Sons,  1873. 
Lord,  Inspiration  not  Guidance  or  Intuition.     Randolph,  1858. 
Wordsworth,  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scriptures.     London,  Rivingtons,  1851. 
Lee,  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures — Nature  anal  Proof.     Carters,  1857. 

See  also : 

Westcott,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Oosjyel,  pp.  1-42.     MacMillan. 
Hodge,  Systematic  Theology,  I:  151-82. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS. 


Pack. 

Page. 

Abelard, 

.     81 

Erasmus, 

.    37 

Agobard,    . 

30 

EDusebius  of  CaBsarea, 

.  23,  25 

Alt',,.-.! 

.    98 

ESutbymius  Zigabenus,  . 

.    30 

Anselm, 

81 

Aquinas,  Thomas, 

Arndl, 

.    31 

50 

Farrar,  A.  S.,   . 
Pox,  <;., 

KM) 
.     5(i 

Arnold,  Thomas,    . 

.    90 

Fridegisus, 

30 

Athanagoras, 

18 

Qaussen, 

.    80 

Augustine, 

.       20,  2? 

Gerhard,    . 

.  40,  48 

Gibbons,  Archbp., 

.  100 

Baier, 

1   .   •         47 

Godet, 

87 

Hare  la}', 

.    5G 

Gregory  (the  (Heat), 

.    20 

Basil  (the  Great), 

2? 

Griesbach, 

84 

Baxter,    .... 

.    59 

Grotius, 

.     53 

Bellarmine, 

51 

Browne,  P.p.  Harold, 

.    99 

Hare,  J.  C, 

92 

Browne,  W.  R., 

97 

Beber 

.    89 

Bugenhagen, 

.    42 

Henderson, 

90 

Bullinger,  . 

42 

Sengstenberg, 

.    84 

Burnet,  (J., 

.    58 

Henke, 

05 

Buxtorffs,   . 

50 

Herder,  .... 

.    05 

Hol'inann,   . 

82 

Calamy, 

.    59 

Hoburg, 

.    50 

Calixtus, 

.-,0 

Holla/, 

.     47,  48,  49 

Calovius, 

.       4s,  19 

[renseus, 

14,  15,  22 

Calvin, 

41 

Cassiodorus,   . 

.    26 

Jerome, 

27 

Cbrysostom, 

26 

John  of  Damascus, 

.    29 

<  llarke,  s  , 

.    69 

Josephus,    . 

10 

(  lenient  of  Alex.         .        1 

5,  Hi,  20,  28 

Jowett,   .... 

.    94 

Coleridge, 

.    90 

Junilius, 

28 

Conybeare,  W,  D., 

98 

Justin  Martyr,             11,1 

5,  is.  id,  22 

Cyprian, 

.    16 

Le  ( Here, 

.     51 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 

15 

Limborcb, 

58 

Davidson,  S. , 

.  100 

Luther,    .... 

.    88 

DeWefle,    . 

11 

Mac  Naught, 

nil 

Doddridge, 

1  < 1 

Maiinonides,    .          ... 

:>.>,  :;o 

Dusterdieck, 

88 

Maiteiisen, 

Ml 

Klwert,    .... 

77 

Maurice, 

.    98 

Episcopius, 

54 

Melancthon, 

10 

INDEX    OF    AUTHORS. 


110 


Page. 


Meylan,          .... 

.    87 

Michaelis,           . 

04 

Middleton,      .... 

.    72 

Miltiades, 

20 

Mohammed,  .... 

.      4 

Morell 

103 

Musaeus,         .... 

.    50 

Neander, 

78 

Novatian,        .... 

.    22 

Origen,       .        .         IS,  1G,  20, 

21,  2:3 

Owen, 

.    59 

Paley, 

.    88 

Parry, 

89 

Pfalf, 

.    G2 

Phillippi, 

79 

Philo,         ....             11, 

18,  19 

Pictet, 

51 

Pighius,          .... 

.    52 

Piscator 

51 

Plato, 

.      6 

Plutarch,     

7 

Priestly,           .... 

.    89 

Quenstedt,           .        .      46,  47, 

48,  49 

Robertson,      .... 

.    91 

Rothe, 

80 

Sakya-Mouni  (Buddha), 

Q 

Savonarola, 

34 

Schleiermacher, 

.    74 

Semler, 

61,63 

52 

Page. 

Smith,  J.  Pye,    . 

94 

Smith,  W.  Robertson,    . 

.  101 

Socinus,  F., 

55 

Spener,  .... 

.    57 

Spinoza, 

.  55,  61 

Stapfer, 

.    66 

Stanley,       .... 

93 

Stier,       .... 

.    79 

Swedenborg, 

66 

Tauler, 

.    33 

Tertullian,          .    14,  16,  17 

19,  22,  23 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,    . 

.  27,  28 

Theodoret, 

.       26,  27 

Theophilus, 

14,  15,  18 

Tholuck, 

.    82 

Thomas  Aquinas, 

31 

Tillotson, 

.    57 

Tollner,     ..... 

62 

Twesten, 

.    76 

Van  Oosterzee,   . 

84 

Wakefield,      . 

.    73 

Warburton, 

71 

Wegscheider, 

.    73 

Weigel,       .... 

56 

Wessel,  .... 

.    35 

Whitby,      .... 

68 

Wiclif,    .... 

.     34 

Wilson,  Bp.  Daniel,  . 

95 

Zoroaster, 

.    3 

Zwingle,       .        .        .        . 

.      40 

DATE  DUE 


«>+"*«.';«teit*Sr.. 


<**%«*..  ■v^Hmamm^ 


J*^"-^ 


GAYLORD 


